THE EVOLUTION OF MAN SCIENTIFICALLY DISPROVED

IN 50 ARGUMENTS

By

REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, D. D. 

Designed (1) As an up-to-date text book, and a companion to all other text books on evolution; and

(2) As an antidote to books in libraries teaching evolution, infidelity and atheism; and

(3) As an aid to all students, parents, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, and all other lovers of the truth. 

THE EVOLUTION OF MAN MATHEMATICALLY DISPROVED

INTRODUCTION

Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory ofscience is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and themaddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions ofscience. Moreover, we should examine any new hypothesis with openminds, to see if it has in it anything truthful, helpful oradvantageous. It should neither be accepted nor rejected simplybecause it is new. But if a theory is evidently or probably untrue, orpernicious, or at all harmful, it is to be rejected and condemned. 

Some facts and objections are herein submitted to the serious seekerafter truth, in the hope that a theory so out of harmony with thefacts, and so destructive to the faith and the cherished hopes of man, may be completely discarded. As Evolution can not stand the acid testof mathematics, it will be repudiated by all. 

We shall discuss the theory upon its merits, from a scientificstandpoint, and will also demand an explanation of all factsconcerned, as we have a right to do, even where they are associatedwith the theological and the spiritual as well as the material. We donot oppose true science but "science falsely so called. " We do not banresearch, but will not allow the wild vagaries of the imagination topass as truth. 

We shall not declare arbitrarily that evolution is untrue; neitherwill we allow scientists to decide what we shall believe. But we shallappeal to the facts, and evolution must stand or fall by theevidence. "Evolution is not to be accepted until proved. " It is notyet proved and never will be. 

MATHEMATICS THE ACID TEST. 

Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved ordisproved by this acid test. Figures will not lie, and mathematicswill not lie even at the demand of liars. Their testimony is as clearas the mind of God. Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerouscalculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory isproved true, and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematicalcalculations. The calculations, leading to the discovery of Neptune, went far to establish the Copernican theory as well as the law ofgravitation, and to disprove the Ptolemaic theory. The evolutiontheory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved bymathematics. The proof is overwhelming and decisive. Thus God makesthe noble science of mathematics bear testimony in favor of the truetheories and against the false theories. We shall endeavor to marshalsome of the mathematical proofs against the false and pernicioustheory of evolution. True theories, such as the gravitation andCopernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch ofmathematics harmonizes with every other. If evolution were true, itwould harmonize with all other true theories, rather than with so manyfalse theories. 

THEORIES OF EVOLUTION

Evolution in one sense, means growth or development, --literally, unrolling or unfolding. It is difficult to give a clear definitionthat will apply to each of the various theories that are held. Theories differ vastly in the extent of their application, as held bytheir various advocates, resulting in great confusion of terms:--

1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was notcreated, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful ofthe whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenabledoctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extremeatheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man. "

2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that allplants and animals, including man, are developed from certain originalsimple germs, was Lamarck, a French naturalist, in 1809. He concededthat God created matter, --nothing more. He believed in spontaneousgeneration, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved. 

3. Darwin goes a step further and concedes there may have been aCreator of matter, and of one, or at most, a few germs, from which allvegetation and all animals came by evolution, --all orders, classes, families, genera, species, and varieties. He differs from Lamarck, byallowing the creation of one germ, possibly a few more. He says in his"Origin of Species, " "I believe that animals are descended from atmost only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lessernumber.... Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to thebelief that all animals and plants are descended from oneprototype.... All the organic beings, which have ever lived on theearth, may be descended from some _one_ primordial form. " Darwin, because of his great scholarship, fairness, and candor, won for histheory more favor than it inherently deserves. Darwin taught that, "The lower impulses of vegetable life pass, by insensible gradations, into the instinct of animals and the higher intelligence of man, "without purpose or design. None of these three hypotheses can admitthe creation of man. 

4. Other evolutionists, believing in the evolution of both plants andanimals, nevertheless refuse to believe in the evolution of man--themost baneful application of the whole theory. Even if there wereconvincing proof of the evolution of plants and animals from one germ, there is no real proof of the evolution of man. To prove this is thechief purpose of this book. 

5. A fifth theory of evolution is held by many. It is calledpolyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject tochange and growth, deterioration and development, according to hisplan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called themonophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animalsincluding man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creationor spontaneous generation. Evolution is used throughout this book inthis latter sense, unless otherwise indicated by the context. God doesnot create by evolution, for it can only develop what already exists. 

This book is divided into three parts: In Part One, materialevolution, especially the evolution of the human body, isdisproved. In Part Two, the alleged proofs of evolution are examinedand refuted. In Part Three, the evolution of the soul is shown to beimpossible. 

There are in all fifty numbered arguments, including answers to thearguments of evolutionists. 

PART ONE

THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY MATHEMATICALLY DISPROVED

Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must bereconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must bereconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, itmust be reconcilable with _all_ the facts. Whenever it isirreconcilable with _any_ fact, it should be rejected, as it cannot be a true theory. Every true theory passes through these threestages, --possibility, probability, and certainty. A theory is notscience, until it is certainly true, and so becomes knowledge. Theevolution of man from the brute is in the throes of a desperatestruggle to show that it may possibly be a true theory orhypothesis. Yet some who are ready to admit that they are"scientists, " claim evolution a proven theory. 

If it can be shown possible for man to have descended or ascended fromthe lower animals, it will require enormous additional evidence toshow that such descent is probable; and still much more to make itcertain. 

Every scientific theory, proposed as _possible_, is reconcilablewith some facts. Otherwise, it would not have been considered for amoment. Many false hypotheses have been proposed, and accepted aspossible and even probable, because reconcilable with some facts. ThePtolemaic theory of the universe, making the earth the centre, aroundwhich the heavens revolved in great concentric spheres, was acceptedfor 1400 years from A. D. 140, because it explained many things. Itcorresponded with appearances. It appealed to all. Its advocates hadgreat difficulty in reconciling it with the motions of the planets, which were therefore called planets or "wanderers. " But in time theCopernican theory prevailed, because it was reconcilable with all thefacts. The evidence is so abundant that all claim it the truetheory. It is science. It is knowledge. 

Because the Copernican hypothesis, the true theory of the universe, was opposed and rejected, it does not follow that the evolution of manis true because it is likewise opposed and rejected. If this newtheory, hypothesis, or guess stands, it can only do so, because itharmonizes with all the facts. The law of gravitation, and every otherproven theory harmonizes with all the facts and with all other truetheories. 

It will be shown in this book, that a large number of facts can not bereconciled with evolution, especially the evolution of man, thusproving that it can not be a true theory. We really have a right todemand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent untilproved. While we are under no obligation to _disprove_ anunproven theory, yet it is the shortest way to settle the matter oncefor all, before it has led multitudes more astray, and wrecked thefaith and hopes of the young. 

Prof. H. H. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution, " p. 57, says, "Reluctant as we may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionistto admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution. " "Ifall the facts are in accord with it, and none are found that areincapable of being reconciled with it, a working hypothesis is said tohave been advanced to a proven theory. " Note this admission by aleading evolutionist. 

Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life cameby evolution from one primordial germ, it would not follow that eitherthe body or the soul of man came by evolution. All the argumentsagainst evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. In addition, there are many other arguments, that prove the evolutionof man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals shouldever be proved possible. 

In this volume, the claim is made that the evolution of man isirreconcilable with a large number of facts. If investigation provesthat we have erred in any statement of facts, or if our reasoning inany one argument or more is fallacious, we will not lose our case, aslong as evolution remains irreconcilable with any other singlefact. If every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that onevalid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory mustbe reconcilable with all the facts. One irreconcilable fact issufficient to overthrow evolution. And there are many!

THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and itis totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can bemathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof ofthe unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters thetheory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race betrue, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, agreat multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of theglobe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who livednot earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also provesone common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religionin historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religionsinvented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world andthe migration of nations point to one locality where the human racebegan in times not more remote, and show that man was created in acivilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution weretrue, there would have been many billion times as many human beings asnow exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or nosimilarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, ifanything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited byevolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also proveevolution impossible. 

The unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that allraces interbreed, the most certain test of every species. 

All these facts pointing to the unity of the race in the days of Noahand of Adam are irreconcilable with the theory of evolution whichdenies that unity within the last two million years. 

We shall present these arguments more in detail. The argumentsimmediately following, especially the first eight, show the unity ofthe human race in the days of Noah, and thus present insuperableobjections to evolution, and confirm the story of man's creation andhis destruction by the flood. The following is the first of fiftyArguments against the evolution of man. 

1. THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD

The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of1922, was found to be 1, 804, 187, 000. The human race must doubleitself 30. 75 times to make this number. This result may beapproximately ascertained by the following computation:--

At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just betwo human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; thetenth, 1024; the twentieth, 1, 048, 576, the thirtieth, 1, 073, 741, 824;and the thirty-first, 2, 147, 483, 648. In other words, if we raise twoto the thirtieth power, we have 1, 073, 741, 824; or to the thirty-firstpower, 2, 147, 483, 648. Therefore, it is evident even to the school boy, that, to have the present population of the globe, the net populationmust be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-onetimes. By logarithms, we find it to be 30. 75 times. After allallowances are made for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and lossesof all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30. 75 times, we would have the present population of the globe. 

Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuaginttext, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years sincethe ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. Bydividing 5177 by 30. 75, we find it requires an average of 168. 3 yearsfor the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the presentpopulation. This is a reasonable average length of time. 

Moreover, it is singularly confirmed by the number of Jews, ordescendants of Jacob. According to Hales, 3850 years have passed sincethe marriage of Jacob. By the same method of calculation as above, theJews, who, according to the Jewish yearbook for 1922, number15, 393, 815, must have doubled their numbers 23. 8758 times, or onceevery 161. 251 years. The whole human race, therefore, on an averagehas doubled its numbers every 168. 3 years; and the Jews, every 161. 251years. What a marvelous agreement! We would not expect the figures tobe exactly the same nor be greatly surprised if one period were twicethe other. But their correspondence singularly corroborates the age ofthe human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word ofGod by the most proficient chronologists. If the human race is2, 000, 000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65, 040 years, or402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable. 

While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yetthere are few things so stable and certain as general average, wherelarge numbers and many years are considered, as in the presentcase. No life insurance company, acting on general average statistics, ever failed on that account. The Jews and the whole human race havelived together the same thirty-eight centuries with very littleintermarriage, and are affected by similar advantages anddisadvantages, making the comparison remarkably fair. 

Also, the 25, 000, 000 descendants of Abraham must have doubled theirnumbers every 162. 275 years, during the 3, 988 years since the birth ofhis son Ishmael. These periods of doubling which tally so closely, 168. 3 years for the whole race, 161. 251 for the Jews, and 162. 275years for the descendants of Abraham, cannot be a mere coincidence, but are a demonstration against the great age of man required byevolution, and in favor of the 5, 177 years since Noah. None of theother various chronologies would make any material difference in thesecalculations. The correspondence of these figures, 168. 3, 161. 251 and162. 275 is so remarkable that it must bring the conviction to everyserious student that the flood destroyed mankind and Noah became thehead of the race. 

Now the evolutionists claim that the human race is 2, 000, 000 yearsold. There is no good reason for believing that, during all theseyears the developing dominant species would not increase as rapidly asthe Jews, or the human race in historic times, especially since therestraints of civilization and marriage did not exist. But let usgenerously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with onepair, doubled their numbers in 1612. 51 years, one-tenth as rapidly asthe Jews, or 1240 times in 2, 000, 000 years. If we raise 2 to the1240th power, the result is 18, 932, 139, 737, 991 with 360 figuresfollowing. The population of the world, therefore, would have been18, 932, 139, 737, 991 decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or18, 932, 139, 737, 991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion. 

Or, let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from asingle pair, only 100, 000 years ago, the shortest period suggested byany evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that thepopulation doubled in 1612. 51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of netincrease, a most generous estimate. The present population of theglobe should be 4, 660, 210, 253, 138, 204, 300 or 2, 527, 570, 733 for everyman, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greaterallowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask withoutblushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that theancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2, 000, 000 or 1, 000, 000or 100, 000 years ago, or even 10, 000 years ago; for if the populationhad increased at the Jewish rate for 10, 000 years, it would be morethan two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly standas the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by anew guess. Q. E. D. 

All these computations have been made upon the supposition that thehuman race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, asthe evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormouslyincreased. 

Yet we are gravely told that evolution is "science". It is the wildestguess ever made to support an impossible theory. 

That their guesses can not possibly be correct, is proven also byapproaching the subject from another angle. If the human race is2, 000, 000 years old, and must double its numbers 30. 75 times to makethe present population, it is plain that each period for doublingwould be 65, 040 years, since {2, 000, 000/30. 75} = 65, 040. At that rate, there would be fewer than four Jews! If we suppose the race to havesprung from one pair 100, 000 years ago, it would take 3252 years todouble the population. At this rate, there would be five Jews!

Do we need any other demonstration that the evolution of man is anabsurdity and an impossibility? If the evolutionists endeavor to showthat man _may_ have descended from the brute, the population ofthe world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROMTHE BRUTE. If they ever succeed in showing that all species of animals_may_ have been derived from one primordial germ, it isimpossible that man so came. He was created as the Bible declares, bythe Almighty Power of God. 

The testimony of all the experts in the famous Scopes trial inTennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect thatevolution was in harmony with _some_ facts and therefore_possibly true_. The above mathematical calculations prove thatthe evolution of man was certainly not true. They fail to make theircase even if we grant their claims. These figures prove the Biblestory, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin ofman. It will be observed that the above calculations point to theunity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago, rather than inthe days of Adam 7333 years ago, according to Hales' chronology. Ifthe race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16, 384 perished by theFlood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe. This most mercifulprovidence of God started the race anew with a righteous head. 

Now, if there had been no flood to destroy the human race, then thedescendants of Adam, in the 7333 years, would have been 16, 384 timesthe 1, 804, 187, 000, or 29, 559, 799, 808, 000; or computed at the Jewishrate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population wouldhave been still greater, or 35, 184, 372, 088, 832. These calculations arein perfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation ofman, and the destruction of the race by a flood. Had it not been forthe flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants ofAdam. Is not this a demonstration, decisive and final?

2. THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES

The unity of the languages of the world proves the recent commonorigin of man. Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists, declared that all languages are derived from one. This is abundantlyproven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammaticalconstruction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of theiralphabets, etc. The words for father and mother similar in form, forexample, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, theAryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups, showing a common original language and proving the early existence ofthe home and civilization. The similarity of these and many otherwords in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages, spoken in all continents is common knowledge. Lord Avebury names 85Hamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and motherare similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, includingTurkish, Thibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 inNew Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken byAmerican Indians. The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese aredaughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and theAryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, thedaughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediatedescendants. There can not well be more than 4 generations oflanguages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the developmentof the 1000 languages and dialects. The American Indians havedeveloped about 200 in 3, 000 or 4, 000 years. The life of a languageroughly speaking, seems to range from 1000 to 3, 000 years. The timesince Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages ofthe world. But if man has existed for 2, 000, 000 or 1, 000, 000 years, with a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would havebeen multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or noresemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They werenever spoken because no one lived to speak them. 

Many linguists insist that the original language of mankind consistedof a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use onlyabout 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters; thestagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanscrit, about the same. All the Semiticlanguages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages isto grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a fewsmall words must have been close to the original mother tongue. Nolanguage could have come down from the great antiquity required byevolution and have so few words. Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58, 000words; modern Dictionaries over 300, 000. The evidence points to theorigin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves thegreat antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitifulabsurdity. 

3. RELIGIONS

The unity of ancient religions proves the creation of man who receiveda divine revelation. According to evolution, all religions wereevolved or invented by humanoids. In that case, we would expect themto be widely divergent; and we would be surprised, if they agreed ongreat and important points, and especially on points which could notbe clearly arrived at by reason. For instance, what in reason teachesus that an animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God? How couldunassisted reason ever arrive at the conclusion that God is properlyworshipped by sacrificing a sheep or an ox? If we grant that onesection of the anthropoid host might have stumbled on the idea, howcan we account for its prevalence or its universality? A very highauthority says, "Sacrifices were common to all nations of antiquity, and therefore, traced by some to a personal revelation. " Byrevelation, we learn that the animal sacrifice prefigured the Lambslain on Calvary. It was revealed. No race of monkey-men could everhave invented the idea. 

The most ancient nations worshipped God by sacrifices. Homer's Iliad(1000 B. C. ) and other works of Grecian poets are full of it. All theclassics, Greek and Latin, are crowded with accounts of offerings. Theearliest records of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hindus andChinese speak of sacrifices long in vogue. This unity of religions onthe point of animal sacrifices bespeaks revelation and not evolution. 

The division of time into weeks of 7 days, prevalent among theancients, suggests an ancient revelation in commemoration of creationas against evolution, which denies creation. The following statementsfrom Dr. J. R. Dummelow, an eminent commentator, show that theBabylonians both divided time into weeks, and offered sacrifices, pointing to the unity of religions. "The Babylonians observed the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th of each lunar month as days when men weresubjected to certain restrictions; the king was not to eat foodprepared by fire, _nor offer sacrifice, _ nor consult an oracle, nor invoke curses on his enemies. " They also observed the 19th of eachmonth. It was customary, therefore, in the days of Abraham, for theBabylonians to offer sacrifices and to observe the 7th day asespecially sacred. This can only be accounted for upon the assumption, that God had revealed to the human race that creation occupied 6 daysor periods, and the 7th was to be observed, --all of which wasdoubtless handed down by tradition. There were priests and temples inthe most ancient empire known. 

Dr. Dummelow says: "It is now widely admitted that the Genesis accountof creation contains elements of belief which existed perhapsthousands of years before the book of Genesis was written, among thepeoples of Babylonia and Assyria. " Many of the primeval revelationswere handed down by tradition. God communed with Adam. There are manyrelics of the original religion: the division of time into weeks, andthe institution of the Sabbath day; the sacrifices so common in theancient religions; the general existence of priests and temples in allages, and among all nations; marriage, the divinely authorized pillarof society; the early institution of the family, and the use of theroot words for father and mother, in all the most ancient languages, and families of languages, as well as in the scattered languages ofthe earth spoken by the most savage. The belief in the immortality ofthe soul, is well nigh universal, even among tribes, who, unlikePlato, possess no power to reason it from the light of nature. Incontrast, we behold the sorry spectacle of the anthropoidevolutionists of our day trying to drive from the hearts of men thehope of immortality by their "science falsely so-called. " The burialof the dead is, no doubt, a relic, since animals, even of the monkeytribe, do not bury their dead. 

4. PLACE OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN

The unity of the human race is further proved by the fact that itoriginated in one locality and not in many. The locality is the onedescribed by Moses. And the fact that Moses correctly located thebeginning of the race, when he himself had no personal knowledge, proves that he was inspired and taught of God. He never could haveguessed the spot to which history and the migration of nations point, and which the evolutionists themselves are obliged to concede. 

The habitable countries of the world total 50, 670, 837 sq. Mi. We aremaking a generous estimate, when we suppose the garden of Eden to havebeen 100 mi. Wide and 125 mi. Long, --12, 500 sq. Mi. There are 4005such areas in the habitable globe. It is located in Mesopotamia on theTigris and Euphrates rivers. 

Maps of ancient nations show that mankind radiated from thiscentre. The great nations of antiquity were clustered about it. Thebeginning of the race after the flood was in the same generallocality. 

Ridpath in his great history of the world, graphically shows themigrations of races and nations. With this, even evolutionistsagree. They draw a line "according to Giddings, " running throughwestern Asia, in the region of the garden of Eden. Since there are4005 such areas in the habitable globe, Moses had only one chance outof 4005 to guess the spot, if he had not been inspired of God. Anyoneguessing, might have located the origin of man in any of the countriesof Europe, Asia or Africa. This clearly demonstrates that God revealedthe truth to Moses, and that the story of creation is true and ofevolution false. 

If evolution were true, there must have been, 6, 000 years ago, manyheads to the race, in many places. It is incredible that there wouldbe but one spot where brutes became humans. There would be aninnumerable host of anthropoid brutes, in many parts of the world, inall gradations. Who can believe that one species or one pair forgedahead so far as to become human?

5. CIVILIZATIONS

The early civilization of man points to his creation, not hisevolution. Evolution requires many centers of civilization; creation, only one. Of course, if man is descended from an ancient ape-likeform, and from the Primates and their brute progeny, he must have beenas uncivilized and brutish as any baboon or gorilla today, or theapes, which, last year, horribly mangled the children at Sierra Leone. He must have worked his way up into civilization. The records, as farback as they go, prove that the original condition of man was a stateof civilization, not savagery. Man fell down, not up. 

The recent explorations in the tomb of Tutankhamen, in Egypt, and themore recent explorations of the tomb of a still more ancient Egyptianmonarch, show that a high degree of civilization prevailed from 2000to 1300 B. C. The art displayed in the carvings and paintings, and theskill of the artisans are beyond praise. They had knowledge even ofwhat are now lost arts. They had a written language 300 years beforeHomer wrote his immortal Iliad. Yet many higher critics claim thatwriting was unknown in the days of Moses and Homer. They declare thatthe Iliad, a poem in 24 books, was committed to memory, and handeddown from generation to generation, 400 years with all its fine poetictouches. Monstrous alternative! Indeed we are even told that "Manymen must have served as authors and improvers. " The mob of recitersimproved the great epic of Homer! Scarcely less brilliant is thesuggestion of another higher critic that, "Homer's Iliad was notcomposed by Homer, but by another man of the same name"!

The laws of Hammurabi, who is identified as the Amraphel of Scripture, Gen. 14:1, and who was contemporary with Abraham, were in existencemany hundred years before Moses, and showed a high state ofcivilization, which began many hundred years before Abraham. Theliterature of China goes back to 2000 B. C. The earliest civilizationof China, Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, reaching to 2500 B. C. , orearlier, points to a still earlier civilization, which likely reachesback to the origin of the human race. 

It is admitted that the earliest (Sumerian) civilization began on theEuphrates, near the garden of Eden. They had temples and priests, and, therefore, religion prevailed as well as civilization. The first greatempires clustered around the places where Adam and Noah lived. Noother civilization recorded in any quarter reaches farther back. 

We quote from the New International Encyclopedia: "The Sumerianlanguage is probably the oldest known language in the world. From theSumerian vocabulary, it is evident that the people who spoke thislanguage had reached a comparatively high civilization. "

The monuments show that in early historical times, man was in a stateof civilization. There are no monuments of man's civilization prior tohistorical time. 

Higher critics have said that Moses could not have written thePentateuch because writing was unknown in his day. Yet Prof. A. H. Sayce, D. D. , LL. D. , of Oxford University, one of the greatestarchaeologists the world ever knew, writes: "Egypt was the first todeliver up its dead. Under an almost rainless sky, where frost isunknown, and the sand seals up all that is entrusted to its keeping, nothing perishes except by the hand of man. The fragile papyrus, inscribed it may be 5, 000 years ago, is as fresh and legible as whenits first possessor died. 

"In Egypt, as far back as the monuments carry us, we find ahighly-developed art, a highly organized government, and ahighly-educated people. Books were multiplied, and if we can trust thetranslation of the Proverbs of Ptah-hotep, the oldest existing book inthe world, there were competitive examinations, [civil service!]already in the age of the sixth Egyptian Dynasty.... We have longknown that the use of writing for literary purposes is immensely oldin both Egypt and Babylonia. Egypt was emphatically a land of scribesand readers. Already in the days of the Old Empire, the Egyptianhieroglyphs had developed into a cursive hand. "

From the Tel el-Amarna tablets, discovered in Upper Egypt, we knowthat for 100 years people were corresponding with each other, in thelanguage of Babylonia in cuneiform characters. Libraries existed then, and "Canaan in the Mosaic age, was fully as literary as was Europe inthe time of the Renaissance. " Ancient Babylonian monuments testify tothe existence of an ancient literary culture. The results of theexcavations by the American Expedition, published by Prof. Hilprecht, of the U. Of Pa. , show that in the time of King Sargon of Accad, artand literature flourished in Chaldea. The region of the garden of Edenwas the pivot of the civilization of the world. From this regionradiated the early civilization of Babylonia, Assyria and Egypt. Andthe advanced degree implies centuries of prior civilization. Theorigin of man and the earliest civilization occurred in the sameregion. Ur explorations (1927) show high art, 3000 B. C. 

The earliest records show man was civilized. He lived in houses, cities and towns, read and wrote, and engaged in commerce andindustry. To be sure, he did not have the inventions of moderntimes. If all these were necessary, then there was no civilizationprior to the 20th century. Prof. J. Arthur Thompson, of Aberdeen, anevolutionist, says: "Modern research is leading us away from thepicture of primitive man as brutish, dull, lascivious andbellicose. There is more justification for regarding primitive man asclever, kindly, adventurous and inventive. "

It is admitted that cannibalism was not primeval. The two greatrevolting crimes of barbarism, cannibalism and human sacrifices, onlyprevailed when man had fallen to the lowest depths, not when he hadrisen out of savagery to the heights. The assertion that man wasoriginally a brute, savage and uncivilized is pure fiction, unsupported by the facts. The original civilization of mankindsupports the Bible, and upsets evolution. 

6. THE MENDELIAN INHERITANCE LAW

The unity of the human race is further established by Mendel'sInheritance Discovery on which evolutionists so much rely. G. Mendel, an experimenter, found that when he crossed a giant variety of peaswith a dwarf variety, the off-spring were all tall. The giants werecalled "dominant"; the disappearing dwarfs, "recessive". But among thesecond generation of this giant offspring, giants and dwarfs appearedin the proportion of 3 to 1. But when these dwarfs wereself-fertilized, successive generations were _all_ dwarfs. Therecessive character was not lost, but appeared again. Experiments withflowers likewise show that the recessive color will reappear. 

Also experiments with the interbreeding of animals have shown similarresults. The recessive or disappearing characteristics, or thedisappearing variety, will appear again, in some subsequentgeneration, and sometimes becomes permanent. This law prevails widelyin nature, and the recessive traits appear with the dominanttraits. "If rose-combed fowl were mated with single-combed fowl, theoffspring were all rose-combed, but when these rose-combed fowl weremated, the offspring were again rose-combed and single-combed.... Ifgray rabbits were mated with black rabbits, their hybrids were allgray, the black seemingly disappearing, but when the second generationwere mated, the progeny were again grays and blacks. "--God orGorilla--p. 278. _The recessive character always reappears. _

Apply these widely prevalent laws to dominant man and his recessivealleged brute ancestor. The simian characteristics would appear insome generations, if not in many. We would expect many offspring _tohave the recessive character of the ape_, and we ought not to besurprised, if some recessive stock became permanent. 

Following analogy, we ought to look for a tribe of human beings thathad degenerated into apes. That we find no such recessivecharacteristics even among the most degenerate savages, and no suchape-like tribe of human beings, is a decisive proof that man neverdescended from the brute. Else such recessive characteristics, according to the Mendelian Law, would be sure to appear. We would alsofind monkeys and apes, --the recessive species--descended from man. 

7. BIOMETRY

Even new sciences, founded by evolutionists, bear witness againsttheir theory. Mendel's Inheritance Law is one, as we have seen;Biometry is another. It was proposed and advocated by Sir FrancisGalton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. He expected it to be a great propto evolution; on the other hand, it is another proof of the unity ofour race in Noah's day, and hence fatal to their theory. Biometry isdefined to be the "statistical study of variation and heredity. " Itbears heavily against the great age of man. 

One of the leading exponents of Biometry, Dr. C. B. Davenport, Secretary of the Eugenics section of the American Breeders'Association concludes that "No people of English descent are moredistantly related than thirtieth cousin, while most people are morenearly related than that. " Professor Conklin, of Princeton University, approves this conclusion, and adds, "As a matter of fact most personsof the same race are much more closely related than this, andcertainly _we need not go back to Adam nor even to Shem, Ham orJapheth to find our common ancestor_. " Dr. Davenport, therefore, says that the English may find a common ancestor thirty-twogenerations ago; Professor Conklin admits that we need not go furtherback than Noah to find a common ancestor of all mankind. Noah, therefore, must have been the head of the race. Evolutionists admit weneed go no farther back than Noah to find the head of the race, andthe population, as we have seen, proves the same thing, and disprovesevery guess they have made of the great age of man. We have descendedfrom Noah and not from the brute. 

This same Professor Conklin says that our race began 2, 000, 000 yearsago (60, 000 generations). How is it possible that we must go backsixty thousand generations for a common ancestor, when thirty-twogenerations will suffice for the English, and about 200 generationssince Noah, for the whole race? If we, by the laws of biometry, canfind a common ancestor in Noah, we can not possibly go back 2, 000, 000years to find one. Professor Conklin's admission refutes his claim of2, 000, 000 years for man. Biometry proves that age absolutelyimpossible. 

If the progeny of this ape-like ancestor inter-bred for manygenerations, --as certainly would have been the case--then we are notonly descended from all the monkey family, the baboon, gorilla, ape, chimpanzee, orang-utang lemur (H. G. Wells' ancestor), mongoose, etc. , but are also related to all their progeny. Glorious ancestors! In ourveins runs the blood of them all, as well as the blood of the mostdisgusting reptiles. And yet Professor H. H. Newman, an eminentevolutionist, in a letter to the writer, says, "The evolution idea isan ennobling one. "! But biometry saves us from such repulsiveforbears, by proving it could not be so. 

Biometrists find that there is a Law of Filial Regression, or atendency to the normal in every species, checking the accumulation ofdepartures from the average, and forbidding the formation of newspecies by inheritance of peculiarities. The whole tendency of thelaws of nature is against the formation of new species, so essentialto evolution. The species brings forth still "after its kind. " "Onthe average, extreme peculiarities of parents are less extreme inchildren. " "The stature of adult offspring must, on the whole, be moremediocre than the stature of the parents. " Gifted parents rarely havechildren as highly gifted as themselves. 

The tendency is to revert to the normal in body and mind. Naturediscourages the formation of new species, evolutionists to thecontrary notwithstanding. "Like produces like" is a universal andunchangeable law. God has forbidden species to pass their boundaries;and, if any individual seems to threaten to do so, by possessingabnormal peculiarities, these are soon corrected, often in the nextgeneration. Even Professor H. H. Newman says, "On the whole, thecontributions of biometry to our understanding of the causes ofevolution are rather disappointing. " A science that upsets evolutionis certainly disappointing to evolutionists. 

8. NO NEW SPECIES NOW

They tell us that 3, 000, 000 species of plants and animals developedfrom one primordial germ, in 60, 000, 000 years. How many new speciesshould have arisen in the last 6, 000 years? Now 20 doublings of thefirst species of animals would make 1, 048, 576 species, since 2 raisedto the 20th power becomes 1, 048, 576. Again we will favor theevolutionists, by omitting from the calculation all species of animalsin excess of 1, 048, 576. Therefore, on an average, each of the 20doublings would take 1/20 of 60, 000, 000 years, or 3, 000, 000 years;and, therefore, 1/2 of the entire 1, 048, 576 species, or 524, 288species, must have originated within the last 3, 000, 000 years. Canthat be the case? Certainly not. 

And since the number of species must have increased in a geometricalratio, 2097 species must have arisen or matured within the last 6000years--an average of one new species of animals every 3 years. Howmany species actually have arisen within the last 6000 years? 2000?200? or 2? It is not proven that _a single new species has arisen inthat time_. Not one can be named. If approximately 2000 new specieshave not arisen in the last 6000 years, the evolution of species cannot possibly be true. Even Darwin says: "In spite of all the effortsof trained observers, not one change of species into another is onrecord. " Sir William Dawson, the great Canadian geologist, says:"_No case is certainly known in human experience_ where anyspecies of animal or plant has been so changed as to assume all thecharacteristics of a new species. "

Indeed, a high authority says: "Though, since the human race began, all sorts of artificial agencies have been employed, and though therehas been the closest scrutiny, yet _not a distinctively new type ofplant or animal_, on what is called broad lines, has come intoexistence. "

Not a single new species has arisen in the last 6000 years when thetheory requires over 2000. Evolutionists admit this. Prof. VernonKellogg, of Leland Stanford University, in his "Darwinism of Today, "p. 18, says:--"Speaking by and large, we only tell the general truthwhen we declare that no indubitable cases of species forming, ortransforming, that is, of descent, have been observed.... For mypart, it seems better to go back to the old and safe _ignoramusstandpoint_. "

Prof. H. H. Newman, of Chicago University, in answer to the writer'squestion, "How many new species have arisen in the last 6000 years?"wrote this evasive reply: "I do not know how to answer yourquestions.... None of us know just what a species is. [If so, howcould 3, 000, 000 species be counted, the number, he says, exists?].... It is difficult to say just when a new species has arisenfrom an old. " He does not seem to know of a single new species withinthe last 6, 000 years. 

The same question was asked of Dr. Osborn, of Columbia University, N. Y. The answer by R. C. Murphy, assistant, was equallyindefinite. He wrote: "From every point of view, your short note ofAug. 22nd raises questions, which no scientific man can possiblyanswer. We have very little knowledge as to just when any particularspecies of animal arose. " In a later letter, he says: "I have no ideawhether the number of species which have arisen during the last 6000years is 1 or 100, 000. "

Should those who "do not know" speak so confidently in favor ofevolution, or take the "old and safe _ignoramus_" standpoint, asProf. Kellogg suggests?

The number of existing species can not be explained upon the ground ofevolution, but only upon the ground of the creation of numerous headsof animal and plant life, as the Scriptures declare. 

We have a right to increase the pressure of the argument, byintroducing into the calculation, the total of 3, 000, 000 species ofplants and animals which would require 6355 new species within thelast 6000 years, or an average of more than one new species a year!And they can not point to one new species in 6000 years, as theyconfess. Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, saidrecently: "If the theory of evolution be true, then, during manythousands of years, covered in whole or in part by present humanknowledge, there would certainly be known at least a few instances ofthe evolution of one species from another. _No such instance isknown. _"

Prof. Owen declares, "No instance of change of one species intoanother has ever been recorded by man. "

Prof. William Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, said, "Itis impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin's theory ofthe origin of species. No explanation whatever has been offered toaccount for the fact that, after forty years, no evidence has beendiscovered to verify his genesis of species. "

Although scientists have so largely discarded Darwin's theory, theutter lack of new species in historic time, when so many are requiredby _every_ theory of evolution, is a mathematical demonstrationthat the whole theory of evolution must be abandoned. Q. E. D. Why dothey still insist it _may be true_?

9. MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY

Mathematical Probability is a branch or division of mathematics bymeans of which the odds in favor or against the occurrence of anyevent may be definitely computed, and the measure of the probabilityor improbability exactly determined. Its conclusions approximatecertainty and reveal how wild the guesses of evolutionists are. 

The evolution of species violates the rule of mathematicalprobability. It is so improbable that one and only one species out of3, 000, 000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not thecase. All had the same start, many had similar environments. Yetwitness the motly products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk, scorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm, and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize, mushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc. All developedfrom one germ, all in some way related. Mark well the difference insize between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and thedifference in intellect between man and the lobster!

While all had the same start, only one species out of 3, 000, 000reached the physical and intellectual and moral status of man. Whyonly one? Why do we not find beings equal or similar to man, developedfrom the cunning fox, the faithful dog, the innocent sheep, or thehog, one of the most social of all animals? Or still more from themany species of the talented monkey family? Out of 3, 000, 000 chances, is it not likely that more than one species would attain the status ofman?

"Romanes, a disciple of Darwin, after collecting the manifestations ofintelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals, found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15months old. " Then man has easily 10, 000, 000 times as much power toreason as the animals, and easily 10, 000, 000, 000 times as muchconscience. Why have not many species filled the great gap between manand the brute? Out of 3, 000, 000 births, would we expect but one male?Or one female? Out of 3, 000, 000 deaths, would we expect all to bemales but one? To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found byevolutionists belong to males except one. Strange! If 3, 000, 000pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fallwith heads up, save one? The Revolutionary war, out of 3, 000, 000people, developed one great military chieftain, but many moreapproximating his ability; one or more great statesmen with allgradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with otherslittle inferior; but there was no overtowering genius 10, 000, 000 or10, 000, 000, 000 times as great as any other. We would be astonishedbeyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as farahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all otherspecies. It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached themeasureless distance between the monkey and man. It violatesmathematical probability. 

We have a right to expect, in many species and in large numbers, allgradations of animals between the monkey and man in size, intellect, and spirituality. Where are the anthropoids and their descendantsalleged to have lived during the 2, 000, 000 years of man's evolution?They can not be found living or dead. They never existed. Creationalone explains the great gap. What signs have we that other specieswill ever approximate, equal or surpass man in attainments? Can wehope that, in the far distant future, a baboon will write an epicequal to Milton's Paradise Lost, or a bull-frog compose an oratoriosurpassing Handel's Messiah?

We find all gradations of species in size from the largest to thesmallest. Why not the same gradation in _intelligence, conscienceand spirituality_? The difference in brain, capacity andintelligence between man and the ape is 50% greater than thedifference in size between the elephant and the housefly. There aremany thousands of species to fill the gap in size. Why not manythousands to fill the greater gap in intelligence? Evidently nospecies became human by growth. Many species like the amoeba, and themicroscopic disease germs, have not developed at all but are the sameas ever. Many other species of the lower forms of life have remainedunchanged during the ages. If the tendency is to develop into thehigher forms of life, why do we have so many of those lower formswhich have remained stationary? Growth, development, evolution, isnot, by any means, a universal rule. 

Evolution is not universally true in any sense of the term. Why arenot fishes _now_ changing into amphibians, amphibians intoreptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and monkeys into man? Ifgrowth, development, evolution, were the rule, there would be no lowerorder of animals for all have had sufficient time to develop into thehighest orders. Many have remained the same; some have deteriorated. 

And now we have a new amendment to the theory of evolution: We aretold that the huge Saurians (reptiles) overworked the developmentidea, and became too large and cumbersome, and hence are nowextinct. Prof. Cope says:--"Retrogression in nature is as wellestablished as evolution. " It seems that man also has, contrary to allformer conceptions, reached the limit of his development, if he hasnot already gone too far. 

Prof. R. S. Lull says, (Readings p. 95) "Man's physical evolution hasvirtually ceased, but in so far as any change is being effected, it islargely retrogressive. Such changes are: Reduction of hair and teeth, and of hand skill; and dulling of the senses of sight, smell andhearing upon which active creatures depend so largely for safety. That sort of charity which fosters the physically, mentally andmorally feeble, and is thus contrary to the law of natural selection, must also, in the long run, have an adverse effect upon the race. " Toobad that Christian charity takes care of the feeble, endangeringevolution, and the doctrine that the weak have no rights that thestrong are bound to respect! We are not surprised that Nietzsche, whose insane philosophy that _might is right_, helped to bring onthe world war, died in an insane asylum. 

After all, evolution is not progress and development, butretrogression and deterioration as well. 

But evolutionists, compelled by the requirements of their theory, haveadded another amendment, which will seem ridiculous to some:

Environment has had an evolution as well as plants and animals! Havingdenied the existence of God, or his active control and interference, they must account for environment by evolution. Listen:--"Hendersonpoints out that environment, no less than organisms, has had anevolution. Water, for example, has a dozen unique properties thatcondition life. Carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to life. Theproperties of the ocean are so beautifully adjusted to life that wemarvel at the exactness of its fitness. [Yet no design!]. Finally, thechemical properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are equally uniqueand unreplaceable. The evolution of environment and the evolution oforganisms have gone hand in hand. " And all by blind chance! Is it nota thousand times better to believe that all things were created by anall-wise and all powerful God? How could a lifeless environment comeby evolution? If we would listen to them, we would be told that theocean, the atmosphere, heat, light, electricity, all the elements, thestarry heavens, and all the universe, and religion itself, came byevolution, some grudgingly granting that God _may_ have createdmatter in the beginning. 

It is unreasonable to believe that one species and only one out of3, 000, 000 by evolution should attain the status of mankind; and thatone species and only one species of the primates should reach theheights of intelligence, reason, conscience and spirituality. Huxleysays, "There is an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite, between the lowest man and the highest beast. "

To declare that our species alone crossed this measureless gulf, whileour nearest relatives have not even made a fair start, is an affrontto the intelligence of the thoughtful student. It does fierce violenceto the doctrine of mathematical probability. It could not havehappened. 

10. THE AGE OF THE EARTH

The estimates of the age of the world vary from 16, 000, 000 years to100 times this number or 1, 600, 000, 000 years. Even H. G. Wells admitsthese estimates "rest nearly always upon theoretical assumptions ofthe slenderest kind. " This is undoubtedly true of the recklessestimates of evolutionists, whose theory requires such an enormouslength of time that science can not concede it. Prof. H. H. Newmansays, "The last decade has seen the demise (?) of the outworn (?)objection to evolution, based on the idea that there has not been timeenough for the great changes that are believed by evolutionists tohave occurred. Given 100, 000, 000 or 1, 000, 000, 000 years since lifebegan we can then allow 1, 000, 000 years for each important change toarise and establish itself. "

An objection is not "outworn" until answered, and to speak of thedemise of a generally accepted theory is hardly scientific. We willnot allow the evolutionist to dismiss so weighty an objection with awave of the hand. Prof. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution, "p. 68, gives 60, 000, 000 years as the probable time since life began. The writer, having based arguments upon that assumption, was surprisedto receive a private letter from him claiming that life has existedfor 500, 000, 000 years. Indeed Prof. Russell, of Princeton, says, inhis "Rice Lectures, " that the earth is probably 4, 000, 000, 000 yearsold, possibly 8, 000, 000, 000! We can do nothing but gasp, while thebewildering guesses come in, and we wait for the next estimate. Wenote their utter abandon, as they make a raid on God's eternity tosupport a theory that would dethrone Him. 

But these extravagantly long periods required by the theory, sciencecannot grant, for the following reasons:--

1. According to the nebular hypothesis, and Helmholtz's contractiontheory, accounting for the regular supply of heat from the sun, thesun itself is not likely more than 20, 000, 000 years old, and, ofcourse, the earth is much younger. Both of these theories are quitegenerally accepted by scientists, and have much to support them. Prof. Young, of Princeton, in his Astronomy, p. 156, says, "The solarradiation can be accounted for on the hypothesis first proposed byHelmholtz, that the sun is shrinking slowly but continually. It is amatter of demonstration that an annual shrinkage of about 300 feet inthe sun's diameter would liberate sufficient heat to keep up itsradiation without any fall in its temperature".... The sun is notsimply cooling, nor is its heat caused by combustion; for, "If the sunwere a vast globe of solid anthracite, in less than 5, 000 years, itwould be burned to a cinder. " We quote from Prof. Young's Astronomy:"We can only say that while no other theory yet proposed meets theconditions of the problem, this [contraction theory] appears to do soperfectly, and therefore has high probability in its favor. " "Noconclusion of Geometry, " he continues, "is more certain thanthis, --that the shrinkage of the sun to its present dimensions, from adiameter larger than that of the orbit of Neptune, the remotest of theplanets, _would generate about 18, 000, 000 times as much heat as thesun now radiates in a year_. Hence, if the sun's heat has been andstill is wholly due to the contraction of its mass, it can not havebeen radiating heat at the present rate, on the shrinkage hypothesis, for more than 18, 000, 000 years; and on that hypothesis, the solarsystem in anything like its present condition, can not be much morethan as old as that. " If so, evolution, on account of lack of time, can not possibly be true. If we add many millions of years to thisnumber, or double it more than once, the time is not yetsufficient. For if the sun is 25, 000, 000, or even 50, 000, 000 yearsold, by the time the planets are thrown off, in turn, from Neptune tothe earth, and then the earth cooled sufficiently for animal life, only a few million years would be left for evolution, a mere fractionof the time required. This is a mathematical demonstration thatevolution can not be true. The same calculations, 18, 000, 000 to20, 000, 000 years, have been made by Lord Kelvin, Prof. Todd and otherastronomers. 

2. The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of thegreat age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperatureincreases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi. , water would boil;at 18 mi. , glass would melt (1850°); at 28 mi. , every known substancewould melt (2700°). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 milesthick, --in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, ifthe thickness of the earth's crust is 17. 5 mi. , as indicated by theSan Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5, 262, 170 years old. If thecrust is 21. 91 mi. Thick, as others say, the age would be 8, 248, 380years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun'sage at 20, 000, 000 years, computed the earth's age at 8, 302, 210years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must haveelapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and thefew millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to renderevolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of theearth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness ofthe earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, andthe 9000 tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts ofthe world. 

3. The surface marks on the earth point to much shorter periods oftime since the earth was a shoreless ocean than those required byevolutionists, who are so reckless in their guesses andestimates. They help themselves to eternity without stint. CharlesLyell, a geologist of Darwin's time, set the example when he said, "The lowest estimate of time required for the formation of theexisting delta of the Mississippi is 100, 000 years. " According tocareful examination made by gentlemen of the Coast Survey and otherU. S. Officers, the time was 4, 400 years--a disinterested decision. Inthe face of these three arguments, it is a bit reckless to say theearth has existed, 1, 600, 000, 000 years, --nearly 100 times as long asproven possible by mathematical calculation. And still more recklessis the estimate of Prof. Russell, 4, 000, 000, 000 to 8, 000, 000, 000years, founded on the radio-activity theory. All these wild estimatesare out of the question. 

The recession of the Niagara Falls from Lake Ontario required only7, 000 to 11, 000 years. It required only 8, 000 years for theMississippi River to excavate its course. 

Prof. Winchell estimates that the Mississippi River, has worn a gorge100 feet deep, 8 miles long, back to the Falls of St. Anthony, inabout 8, 000 years. The whole thickness of the Nile sediment, 40 feetin one place, was deposited in about 13, 000 years. Calculations bySouthall and others from certain strata have fixed man's firstappearance on the earth at 8, 000 years, in harmony with Scripture. 

LeConte, in his Geology, p. 19, says, "Making due allowance for allvariations, it is probable that all land-surfaces are being cut downand lowered by rain and river erosion, at a rate of one foot every5, 000 years. At this rate, if we take the mean height of lands as 1200feet, and there be no antagonistic agency at work raising the land, all lands would be cut down to the sea level and disappear in6, 000, 000 years. "

May we not from these data, judge approximately of the age of theworld, and show by this proof also, that the world can not be at allas old as the evolution theory demands? If the surface of the earthwill be worn down 1200 feet on an average in 6, 000, 000 years, would itnot also be true that the surface has been worn down at least 1200feet in the last 6, 000, 000 years? For the higher the surface, the morerapid the erosion. And if the earth is 8, 302, 210 years old, as LordKelvin computes, then at the same rate, it must have been worn down anaverage of 1660 feet, --38% more than remains. Is this not a fairestimate for the amount of erosion and the age of the world? How highmust the land have averaged, if the world is even 60, 000, 000 yearsold?

If this be true, how long would it have taken erosion in the past, toreduce the land to its present configuration, --the short periodindicated by science, or the immensely long period required byevolution?

But the evolutionists are clinging to the radio-activity theorydesperately, an S. O. S. Of a lost cause, depending, like evolution, ona great many assumptions, and unproven hypotheses. The assumption isthat a radio-active substance, like uranium, "decays, " or passes intomany other substances, of which radium is one, finally producing leadin 1, 000, 000, 000 years or more. From this theory, Prof. Russellconcludes that the earth is 4, 000, 000, 000 to 8, 000, 000, 000 years old, and the sun is older still. During this inconceivably long period, thesun was giving out as much heat as at present, which is 2, 200, 000, 000times as much as the earth receives. The heat of the sun can not beaccounted for, by either the combustion or cooling off theory. By thecommonly accepted contraction theory, the heat has been maintainedonly about 20, 000, 000 years. How could it have been sustained4, 000, 000, 000 to 8, 000, 000, 000 years? Prof. Russell answers: "We musttherefore _suppose_ that energy from an 'unknown source' becomesavailable at exceedingly high temperatures.... We can not do more than_guess_ where it is hidden. " Is this scientific? This theory, moreover, is interlocked with Einstein's theory of Relativity, whichholds that all energy has mass, and all mass is equivalent toenergy. Although 2700 books have been written, pro and con, uponEinstein's theory, yet he says only 12 men understand it, and ascientist retorts that Einstein can not be one of the 12. Thecontraction theory, the thickness of the cooled crust of the earth, and the conformation of its surface, all give mathematical proof thatevolution is impossible because of lack of time. 

11. GEOLOGY AND HISTORY

During the historical period, the species have remained unchanged. Ifover 1, 000, 000 species of animals have arisen in the 60, 000, 000 years, as is claimed, over 2000 of them must have arisen in the last 6, 000years. As evolutionists can not name a single new species that hasarisen within that time, their theory falls to the ground. No speciesin that time, has passed into another. No species has been dividedinto two or more. No lower species has advanced into a higher. Historygives no scrap of evidence in support of evolution. Even the horse, whose history has been dubiously traced for 3, 000, 000 years, has beena horse unchanged for the last 6, 000 years. Even if the missing linksin the development of the horse _could_ be supplied, it wouldstill be the same species all the while. But there are notransitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of thehorse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size. Manyvarieties and individuals under the skill of man have been developedand improved, but not a single new species in historic time. Thereare 5, 000 varieties of apples but no new species. But when theevolutionist is hard pressed to answer, he takes to the wilds ofeternity where it is hard to pursue him, and to check up on hisguesses. He answers that changes are so slow, and take so manymillions of years, that they can not tell of a single new species inthe last 6, 000 years, when over 2, 000 are required. 

He appeals to Geology, which is history down to historic time, expecting to take advantage of the ignorance of the careless student. 

But Geology will not aid him to prove his reckless theory. Even Darwincomplained that the evidences from Geology were scanty. Geologytestifies: The genera and species of fossil animals are as distinct asthose now living; new species appear at certain epochs entirelydifferent from those which preceded; often the most perfect specimensof a new species appear at the beginning of a geologic period ratherthan at its close, leaving no room for evolution; no species is shownchanging into another; and many species are largest at thebeginning. As Geology is brought in as a hopeful witness byevolutionists, they are bound by a well-known principle of law, toaccept the statements of their own witness even though fatal to theirtheory. 

For them, Geology furnishes sorry evidence concerning the evolution ofman from the brute. The great scheme of evolution claims as its chiefsupport four geologic "finds. " We can not be certain that any one ofthese has the slightest evidential value. An ardent evolutionist, Dr. Dubois, found a few bones, part ape, part human, buried in the river_sands_, 40 feet deep. They were scattered 50 feet apart, no twojoined together. They called this strange creature pithecanthropus, and fixed its age at 750, 000 years; others reduced it to 375, 000years. These few bones are no doubt from a modern ape and modern man. 

The Heidelberg Jaw was also found _in the sand_, and is guessedto be 700, 000 years old. It is hard to be respectful while theygravely tell such stories. But the next is even worse: The Piltdownman, alias the Piltdown fake, fabricated out of a few bones of a manand a few of an ape. It is rejected as a fabrication even by manyevolutionists. 

The Neanderthal man lived, they say, about 50, 000 years ago. A part ofa skull was found in a cave. 

All the bones purporting to belong to these four creatures would nottogether make one complete skeleton, or even one complete skull. Achild could carry all this "evidence" in a basket. These skulls can beduplicated by abnormal skulls in many graveyards today. Scientists arenot certain they belong to the same individual. Part ape, parthuman. A desperate effort to get convincing evidence, where there isnone. We can not be certain they lived in the age claimed. Scientists, even evolutionists, differ widely. 

In contrast to this scant and uncertain evidence, Ales Hrdlicka, ofthe Smithsonian Institution, speaking of a single locality, says, "NearLyons, France, the skeletons of 200, 000 prehistoric horses arescattered. In one cave in Moravia, there are enough mammoth teeth tofill a small sized hall.... From the Heidelberg man, there ispractically no record for about 200, 000 years. The kinship of thePiltdown Java and Heidelberg man _is open to dispute_. TheNeanderthal man may not have been a direct ancestor, of the specieswhich produced Shakespeare, Napoleon and Newton. " Remains of theunchanged ape are abundant. But the alleged human remains are scantyand uncertain. ' Now if there were millions and billions of humanbeings developing from the brutes, should we not expect as manyremains as of horses and mammoths and apes? We do not have millions ofthem, simply because they did not exist. Is not this well nigh ademonstration?

Shall we, upon this scant and uncertain evidence, accept a theory thatshocks the reason and the moral sense of mankind, and which leadsnaturally to infidelity and atheism, and takes away even our hope ofimmortality? Later in this volume we will consider more fully thealleged proofs from these geologic "finds. "

Prof. Charles Lyell said: "In the year 1806, the French Instituteenumerated not less than 80 geological theories which were hostile tothe Scriptures; but not one of these theories is held today. "

Many have come to the hasty conclusion that there was a continuouselaboration or a progressive growth among all species. True in somecases, but by no means universal. Many species have remained stablefor millions of years; many have retrograded and deteriorated. Indeed, some evolutionists claim man has retrograded. 

Many species of animals have been larger than their moderndescendants. Many species show no change. All the bacilli remain thesame microscopic species, even those too microscopic to be seen orisolated. They multiply the same, and produce the same diseases. Howcan there be growth in the microscopic world either animal orvegetable? The doctrine that there is a development and a growthamong all species of animals or plants, is contradicted by thefacts. If that doctrine were true, there would be no lower order ofanimals after so many millions of years of growth. All would have beenlarge and of a high order like others. Since we find a majority of allanimal species less in size than the fly, there has been little growthin most species, and in many, none at all. The amoebae, one celledanimals, smaller than a small pin-head, have existed unchanged sincelife began. If plants and animals all developed from a one-celledanimal, such as the amoeba, why did not the amoeba develop? Or, ifsome developed, why not all? Certainly there would not remain a greatmultitude of species in the microscopic world. 

Of many species small and large, we have many fossils preserved but_no transitional forms_. The archæopteryx, a bird with afeathered tail, is the only alleged transitional form between thereptiles and the birds. Only two specimens of this same animal havebeen found. This could easily be an exceptional species of createdbirds differing no more from the normal bird than the ostrich orhumming bird. If there were transitional forms we ought to have themby the millions. No transitional forms have been found betweenreptiles and mammals; and we have seen that there are no reliableforms between man and mammals. The numerous missing links make a chainimpossible. Evolution is not simply growth or change, but thedevelopment of all species from one germ. 

12. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

Geographical Distribution, another witness claimed by theevolutionists, bears testimony, which they are bound, in law, toreceive. 

We find animals whose power of locomotion is very limited, scatteredall over the world, like the mollusca and crustacea, embracing a largenumber of families, genera, and species. It is incredible that theseall originated in one place, and from one germ, and migrated todistant parts of the world. The oyster, for example, is found inEurope, Africa, North and South America. There are over 200 species, found in all warm tempered climates, but none in the coldestregions. How could they cross the ocean and be distributed along allcontinents? They are soon attached to solid rocks, or other supports, and do not move at all. And if they do, how could they cross thousandsof miles of ocean barren of all food?

Dr. George W. Field, an expert authority, says the oysters of Europeare unisexual, but in America, they are double-sexed. How could one bederived from the other? Even the oyster is too much for theevolutionist. The same argument applies to a great multitude ofspecies, that have little or no powers of locomotion. 

If all plants and animals originated from one germ in one place, howcan plants, indigenous to a single continent, or hemisphere, beaccounted for? Why, for example, was there no maize, or Indian corn, in the old world? Or tomatoes, potatoes, or any other plantsindigenous to America? If these once existed in the old world, asthey must have done, according to the theory, why were they found inAmerica alone?

Here we quote from Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest authorities theworld ever knew: "I will, therefore, consider the transmutation theoryof species as a _scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency. " (Italicsours and yours). _

13. GOD NOT ABSENT NOR INACTIVE

The theory that God is absent or inactive is as untenable andGod-dishonoring as the discarded theory of atheism itself. 

Evolution, as held by many, harmonizes with and supports the false andimpossible assumption that God created one, or at most, a few germs, from which all animal species including man, and plants developed, by"natural law. " This theory seems plausible to those who do not examineit too closely. It does not deny the existence of God, and concedes hemay have created one or more germs, but delegated the development ofan orderly world to "natural law. " Thus his activities are no longerneeded. Perhaps they entertain the thought that God must grow wearyunder the active and sleepless control of the universe, if not of theworld alone. They lose sight of the fact that a God of infinite mindand power can not be wearied by any possible complications, or anyrequired amount of energy. Rather, the exercise of unlimited energy isa source of pleasure and happiness. May we not learn this from theboundless extent of the universe? Creation is not a task, but a greatsatisfaction. If God finds so much happiness in creating a boundlessuniverse, would he renounce the pleasure of the active care andcontrol of 3, 000, 000 species?

The hypothesis that God delegates to "law" the evolution of theuniverse, the world, and all species, is untenable, because no law, human or divine, can enforce itself. Law has no power. It is not abeing, a creature, a living thing. It is absolutely helpless. It cannot be God's agent to carry out his will. Why the need of it? Whyshould not God use his power direct to do his will? What gain increating and employing an agent? Which would be easier, to execute hisown will, or delegate it to a law?

His law is simply the record of his acts. He executes his own willwith exact regularity. He does not vary. Hence, all his creatures maydepend on regularity. It seems like law. The power in every case isthe power of God. Law has no power. The law of gravitation has nopower. Matter has no power. One of the primary lessons we learn inphysics is the inertia of matter. Matter can not move, unless movedupon; nor stop of itself, when once in motion. Absolutely powerless!The power of attraction, which we may call a property of matter, isreally the power of God. The effects are the results of power andintelligence. Law has neither power nor intelligence. Human law marksout the course man _should_ pursue. Divine law records thecourse God _has_ pursued. Human law must be enforced by all theexecutive power of the nation. God executes his own will, with perfectregularity; and, by courtesy of language, we call it "law. " He is thegreat executor of the universe, not far removed, but proven presenteverywhere, by the power and wisdom necessary to produce the results. These results are found in the boundless universe, and in themicroscopic world. They are found in the world far below the power ofthe most powerful microscope to detect. All the combinations ofchemical elements are made, hidden from the eye of the microscope. Substances are dissolved and new combinations made, atoms arenumbered, counted and combined with mathematical precision, and withan intelligence difficult for man to compute. No law could dothis. Only a Being who has sufficient power and intelligence is equalto it. Law has no power, nor intelligence. Water is composed of twoatoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, combined with absolute precisioneverywhere. All chemical reactions require computations of anintelligent being. All nature teems with proofs that God is everywhere present. The elements in a high explosive are arrangedinstantly in new combinations, each atom taking its proper partners, in the proper proportion, with unerring precision. Countlesscalculations of the most difficult kind are made instantly andcontinually by the divine mind. Thus God's presence everywhere in theminutest forms of matter is clearly proved. It is a mathematicaldemonstration. God is not wearied by the care of worlds and suns, andsystems and snow-drifts of stars on the highway of heaven, and takesjust as perfect notice of atoms and electrons. They who think God isunable or unwilling to take care of the minutest division of matter aswell as the rolling suns, must have a very diluted idea of God. It isnow claimed that the atom, formerly believed to be the smallestdivision of matter, consists of 1740 parts. Sir Oliver Lodge says thatthe structure of an atom is as complex as that of a piano. This latestscientific discovery detects the power and wisdom of God, controlling, for ages, this minutest division of matter, undetected by the mostpowerful microscope. 

It staggers one to think of the countless and difficult calculationsthat are made instantly by the divine mind in every part of theuniverse. The path of every snowflake that lazily pursues its tortuouscourse, and rests upon the lap of earth, is marked out, not by any lawor agent, but by God himself. He calculates instantly the cyclone'spath, the movement of every particle of air, the direction, velocityand path of every raindrop. A law could not do it. The wisest mancould not do it. But God can do it, with the ease with which thetempest carries a feather on its bosom, or the ocean floats a straw!Every second, about 16, 000, 000 tons of rain and snow fall to theearth; and God calculates the paths of the myriad flakes of snow anddrops of rain instantly and unerringly. 

The Conservation of Energy and the inter-convertibility offorces--light, heat, electricity, --taking place constantly everywhere, often on a stupendous scale, require bewildering calculations by anever-present God. No energy, not even potential energy, can be lost inconverting one force into another. It must be computed exactly. 

Who but an infinite God could have calculated the enormous potentialenergy of the nebulous gases, required by contraction to cause theprodigious heat of a universe of suns?

The earth turns over noiselessly every 24 hours, carrying on itsbosom, at the rate of 1000 mi. An hour, at dizzy heights, a mosttenuous atmosphere, without a rustle, without the loss of a second in1000 years. The earth with its satellite, is traveling around the sunat the rate of 18. 5 mi. Per second--75 times as fast as a cannonball, --bearing a load of 6, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 tons, andarriving at a given point in its orbit, on exact time every tropicalyear. It has arrived so promptly on time following its ellipticalcourse, at such a rate that the radius vector, a line from the sun tothe earth, passes over equal areas in equal times, furnishing everymoment an abtruse problem difficult for a scholar to solve. The orbitis so vast that it varies from a straight line, but 4 in. In 666 mi. , the distance from Philadelphia to Chicago. 

The sun also, with its family of worlds and their satellites, isplunging through space at the rate of 8. 5 mi. Per second; moreover, there are swarms of huge suns, many larger than ours, moving instraight-lines like a universe on a journey, and countless millions ofsuns in swiftest flight through the skies, whose orbits and rates ofmotion must all be calculated and controlled by a mind of amazingpower and intelligence. 

Is not the so-called "scientist" either a madman or a fool, whobelieves that all this can be accounted for, without the presence of aGod of infinite power and intelligence?

Water contracts as the temperature falls. But when within four degreesof the freezing point, water expands and ice becomes lighter thanwater, and floats, and saves all bodies of water from becoming solidbodies of ice. 

Who can say that God does not intervene, in this case, to save alllife? It is a striking proof that God is not absent nor inactive. 

Gravitation requires the computation of countless millions of the mostcomplex and difficult problems, every instant, by the divine mind. Theattraction of all matter for all other matter is in proportiondirectly to the mass and inversely to the square of the distance. Theexact weight of every object is determined by the attraction of theearth and every particle thereof, the mountain that may be nearby, theelevation and altitude of the place, the attraction of the sun and themoon, and every star in heaven, even though too small to be computedby man, --all these are computed precisely by the divine mind. Theseinnumerable calculations prove that God is everywhere. We arecontinually in the immediate awesome presence of an Infinite God. 

Every computation that man ever made, was made long before by a greatIntelligence, that excels all others combined. How intricate is thecalculation of the divine mind, which causes the water of every ocean, sea, lake, pond, and vessel, when at rest, to correspond with theexact sphericity of the earth. In the face of innumerable anddifficult calculations, --proofs of the intense activity of the divinemind, --who can be so reckless as to say that God is absent orinactive?

Not only does God make endless calculations in executing his will inthe material universe, but in the intellectual, moral and spiritualworld as well. We can not measure, with any human instruments, theamount of mental discipline and improvement, resulting from a certainamount of study. But God calculates unerringly the precise amount ofmental discipline or improvement earned by every mental exertion. Theamount is in precise proportion to the mental effort. The gain isdefinite, exact and unerring, the calculation is instantaneous, andbeyond the power of the profoundest mathematician to compute. So also, the effect of every moral act, wish, desire, purpose, intention oraffection, is instantly computed, and the moral character modified inexact proportion to their weight. If a man indulges in vice, hebecomes vicious in proportion. If he commits a crime, he becomes morecriminal in nature. Every theft is computed at its proper value. Every good and noble act ennobles the character in proportion to itsworth. There is a settlement, every instant, and all deeds, wishes, desires, purposes, and affections go into the character, and affect itin precise proportion to their weight. Who but an infinite God, cankeep all accounts of his innumerable creatures instantaneously, andhave them complete, exact and unerring? No man, nor angel, nor "law, "could do it. In like manner, every spiritual act, wish, purpose, motive, --all go in to make up the spiritual life of man, in exactproportion to their worth. Not all the mathematicians and scribes inthe universe could together solve the problems, that the greatintellect of the Supreme Ruler is solving every instant of time. 

This theory of an absent or inactive God leaves no place for prayer, an almost universal instinct of mankind. If a blind, deaf, and dumband helpless law is in control, it is useless to pray for help. Allnations, races and peoples instinctively believe that God hears andanswers prayer. This is a scientific fact with which evolutionistsmust reckon, even if it has a pious or otherwise offensive sound. Nouse to pray to an inexorable "law, " which, like the gods of theheathen, can neither see, nor hear, nor taste, nor smell. 

How unscientific then seems the following declaration of Darwin: "Tomy mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed onmatter [How could that be?] by the Creator, that the production andextinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world shouldhave been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birthand death of the individual. " It does not remove the First Great Causefrom active control of the world to call his acts "secondary causes. "

14. CHANCE OR DESIGN?

Evolution is the old heathen doctrine of chance. It professes toeliminate design and a personal active Creator. The theory of naturalselection allows no design, no intelligence, no interference, nocontrol, by the Creator. He does not interfere even by means oflaw. M. M. Metcalf, of Oberlin, O. , (shades of Chas. G. Finney!), aprominent evolutionist, says, "The last stand was made by those whoclaim that supernatural agency intervenes in nature in such a way asto modify the natural order of events. When Darwin came to dislodgethem from this, their last intrenchment, there was a fight. " Yes! thefight will last while any one tries to substitute chance for thecontrol of Almighty God. 

The universe teems with countless evidences of intelligent design ofthe highest order, whether it is found in the starry heavens, or inthe law and order of the atoms hiding from the most powerfulmicroscope. All things came by chance or by design. They say there isno design. We wonder that the hand that wrote the lie was notpalsied. It would be, if the same Creator that filled every muscle, nerve, bone, and tissue of the sacrilegious hand, with numberlessproofs of design, were not a long-suffering and merciful God. 

Prof. Vernon Kellogg says: "Darwinism may be defined as a certainrational causo-mechanical (hence non-teleologic) explanation of theorigin of species. " Translated into plain English, this euphemisticexpression means that Darwinism excludes all design and control by aCreator. Chance pure and simple. All species originated by chance, without interference by a supreme Being. This senseless doctrine ofchance has been condemned by man in every age. 

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

THE HUMAN BODY. Can evolutionists imagine how the human bodycould be crammed fuller of the clearest proofs of the most intelligentdesign, indicating a mind of the highest order? Many of the mostremarkable inventions of man were suggested by the wonderfulcontrivances found in the human body. Yet they say this marvelouspiece of ingenuity did not come from the hand of the Creator but wasdeveloped by blind chance or "natural laws, " without a trace ofintelligent design by the Creator, or by man or beast. The human bodycan no more be a product of chance or causo-mechanical evolution thana Hoe printing press, or Milton's Paradise Lost. 

On high medical authority, we are told that there are in the humanbody 600 muscles, 1000 miles of blood vessels, and 550 arteriesimportant enough to name. The skin, spread out, would cover 16 squarefeet. 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 x100 ft. The lungs are composed of 700, 000, 000 cells of honey comb, allof which we use in breathing, --equal to a flat surface of 2, 000 squarefeet, which would cover a city lot. In 70 years, the heart beats2, 500, 000, 000 times, and lifts 500, 000 tons of blood. The nervoussystem, 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 brainalone. In the blood are 30, 000, 000 white corpuscles, and180, 000, 000, 000, 000 red ones. Almost 3 pints of saliva are swallowedevery day, and the stomach generates daily from 5 to 10 quarts ofgastric juice, which digests food and destroys germs. Two gallonsdaily! It is easy also to believe that the "very hairs of our headsare numbered, "--about 250, 000. 

Yet many an upstart, with thousands of the most marvelous contrivancesin 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 ourbodies have reached the dizzy heights of perfection, withoutintelligence, purpose or design. Absurd in the highest degree! "Weare fearfully and wonderfully made. "

THE EYE. Darwin says, "To suppose that the eye with all itsinimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to differentdistances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for thecorrection of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have beenformed by natural selection, _seems, I frankly confess absurd in thehighest degree_. " (Italics ours). After admitting that it "seemsabsurd in the highest degree, " he proceeds, as if it were certainlytrue. Darwin has been admired for his candor, but not for hisconsistency. After admitting that an objection is insuperable, he goeson as if it had little or no weight. And many of his followers takethe same unscientific attitude. They try to establish their theory inspite of overwhelming arguments. 

"Reason tells me, " he says, "that if numerous gradations from a simpleand imperfect eye, to one complex and perfect, can be shown to exist, such gradation being useful to its possessor, as is certainly thecase" (certainly?), "if further, " he continues, "the eye varies andthe variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case" (mostmodern evolutionists say certainly _not_ the case; what, ifvariations are unfavorable?); "And if such variations should beuseful, (what if not useful?) to any animal under changing conditionsof life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complexeye _could_ be formed by natural selection, _though insuperableto the imagination_ (Italics ours) should not be considered assubversive of the theory"!! Darwin undertakes a task far too great forhis mighty genius. "Believing that a perfect and complex eye could beformed" is many moral leagues from proving that it was so formed. Wemust have stronger proof than sufficient to lead us to believe thatsuch an eye could possibly be so formed. All proof is exhausted in thestruggle to prove the possibility of the formation of so marvelous aneye, to say nothing of the probability, much less the certaintyrequired by science. We hold evolutionists to the necessity ofproving that the eye was _certainly_ so formed. We demandit. Otherwise, we shall certainly "consider it subversive of thetheory. " And if acquired by one species, how could it benefit anotherspecies? But we must contest the claim that the wonderful eye of manand animals _could_ have been formed by evolution. Darwin's wholetheory aims to account for all creation, with its super-abundantevidences of design, by natural selection, which works without designand without intelligence. The theory is founded upon the monstrousassumption that unintelligent animals and plants, can, by aimlesseffort arrive at such perfection as the organs of the human body, exceeding anything in mechanical contrivance, invented to date by thegenius of man. Indeed, that wonderful invention of the telescope isbut a poor imitation of the eye, and does not begin to equal it inmarvelous design. Who would say that the telescope might have beenconstructed by chance, or the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, or bynatural selection, or any other attempted method of blotting out thegreat intelligent Designer of the universe? It not only "_seems_absurd in the highest degree, " but certainly _is_, and is fatalto the theory. 

The eye is so wonderful in its powers, and delicate adjustments, thatwe stand amazed at the evidences of design, and at the wisdom of theMaker of the eye, far exceeding the highest inventive genius ofman. To say that this is the result of "natural selection, " is absurdand ridiculous. Evolution eliminates design, mind, and an active andever 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 theeye causes its possessors to survive, and others to die. Is that true?Are there not many species that survive, whose eyes are less perfectthan the eye of man? Indeed, it is claimed that many animals have eyessuperior to man. If so, why did man survive and become the dominantspecies, with eyes less perfect? The compound eyes of some species aresuperior in some respects, as every one knows, who has ever tried toslip up on a fly. A scientist says that fleas have such perfect visionthat the darkness under the bed clothes is to them a glaring light. 

Darwin makes a fatal admission, when he says, "To arrive, however, ata conclusion regarding the formation of the eye with all its marvelousyet not absolutely perfect characters, it is indispensable that thereason should conquer the imagination; But I _have felt thedifficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others hesitating toextend the principle of natural selection to so startling alength_. " (Italics ours). No wonder the reason and judgment ofmankind revolts against such a theory and that so many evolutioniststhemselves 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 fromthat of the red ripe cherries. Can it be possible that the eyebecomes more perfect, because those who had less perfect eyesperished, and only those who could recognize colors survive untilcolor blindness is finally eliminated? Is such a doctrine scientific?Is it more reasonable to believe it than to believe that an infinitelywise and powerful God created this organ of marvelous value andbeauty? Of course, the ability to recognize color is only one of themany perfections of the eye. 

Evolution is made so much more incredible, because it teaches thatevery permanent improvement in the eye is made at the expense ofmultitudes of individuals that perished because of the lack of theimprovement. The defect perished only because all individualsafflicted 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 defectiveeyes; 1, 000, 000, defective hearing; 1, 000, 000 have activetuberculosis; 250, 000, heart trouble; 3, 000, 000 to 5, 000, 000 areunderfed; total, 12, 250, 000, --more than half. Must all thesedefectives perish in order that man may reach perfection? Less thanhalf 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 beenso formed, by blind chance or natural selection, how could he accountfor the advantageous location of the eye and other organs? While wecan not well name a fraction small enough to express the mathematicalprobability of the formation of the eye, the ear, and other organs ofthe body, we easily can compute the fraction of the probability oftheir location, though very small. In the passage quoted from Darwin, he begins with the simple eye, but does not say how the eyeoriginated. Hon. William J. Bryan in his book, "In His Image, " p. 97, says, "But how does the evolutionist explain the eye, when he leavesGod out? Here is the only guess that I have seen, --if you find anyothers, I shall be glad to know of them, as I am collecting theguesses of the evolutionists. The evolutionist guesses that there wasa time when eyes were unknown--that is a necessary part of thehypothesis. And since the eye is a universal possession, among livingthings, the evolutionist guesses that it came into being, --not bydesign 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 thathad no eyes. This piece of pigment or freckle converged the rays ofthe sun upon that spot, and when the little animal felt the heat onthat spot, it turned the spot to the sun to get more heat. Thisincreased heat irritated the skin, --so the evolutionists guess--and anerve 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 pieceof pigment or freckle soon afterward, and just in the right place inorder to give the animal two eyes. "

Now assuming, what seems an utter impossibility, that the wonderfulmechanism of the eye can be accounted for by chance or naturalselection (another name for chance since design is excluded), how canwe account for the _location_ of the eyes, and, in fact, of allthe other organs of the body? We can easily calculate the mathematicalprobability on the basis of natural selection. There are from 2500 to3500 square inches of surface to the human body, a space easily 3000times the space occupied by an eye. The eye, by the laws ofprobability, is just as likely to be located any where else, and hasone chance out of 3000 to be located where it is. But out, of ourabundant margin, we will concede the chance to be one out of 1000, andhence its mathematical probability is . 001. For mathematicalprobability includes possibility and even improbability. The compoundprobability of two things happening together is ascertained bymultiplying together their fractions of probability. Now theprobability of the location of the second eye where it is, also is. 001. And the compound probability of the location of both eyes wherethey are, is . 001 x . 001 or . 000, 001. In like manner, the probabilityof 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 twoears where they are, is . 000001 x . 000001 or . 000, 000, 000, 001. The twoeyes and two ears have but one chance out of a trillion or a millionmillion to be located where they are. The location of the mouth, thenose, and every organ of the body diminishes this probability athousand fold. We are speaking mildly when we say that thiscalculation proves that the evolution of the body, by chance ornatural selection, has not one chance in a million to be true. Soruthlessly does the pure and reliable science of mathematics shatterthe theory of evolution, which so called scientists claim is as firmlyestablished as the law of gravitation. 

Concerning the wild guess of the development of the legs, we againquote from Mr. Bryan, "In His Image, " p. 98: "And according to theevolutionist, there was a time when animals had no legs, and so thelegs came by accident. How? Well, the guess is that a little animalwas wiggling along on its belly one day, when it discovered a wart--itjust happened so, --and it was in the right place to be used to aid itin locomotion; so, it came to depend upon the wart, and use finallydeveloped it into a leg. And then another wart, and another leg, atthe proper time--by accident--and accidentally in the proper place. Isit not astonishing that any person, intelligent enough to teachschool, would talk such tommyrot to students, and look serious whiledoing so?"

Some one has counted that Darwin has used phrases of doubt, like "Wemay well suppose, " 800 times in his two principal works. The wholetheory is built up on guesses and suppositions. "Let us suppose" thateach guess is 95 per cent certain, which is far higher than theaverage or any. The compound probability would equal . 95 raised to the800th power which would be . 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 006, 281 which meansthere are 6 chances out of a quintillion that evolution is true. Sincenot all of these 800 suppositions are dependent upon each other, weare willing to multiply this result by 10, 000, 000, 000 which stillshows that the theory has less than one chance in a million to betrue. Darwin himself says, "The belief that an organ so perfect as theeye could have been formed by natural selection, is more than enoughto STAGGER ANY ONE. " Yet he and his followers refuse to be"staggered, " and proceed to argue as if this unanswerable objectionhad little or no weight. _Any hypothesis is weakened or damaged byevery support that is an uncertain guess_. Gravitation has no suchsupport. 

Mr. Alfred W. McCann, in his great volume "God or Gorilla, " shows thatH. G. Wells, the novelist _alias_ historian(?), in his "Outlineof History, " uses 103 pages to show man's descent from an ape-likeancestry, and employs 96 expressions of doubt or uncertainty, such as"probably, " "perhaps, " "possibly, " etc. He does not hesitate toendorse the wildest guesses of the evolutionists, and sits upon thetop 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]. Itclambered about the trees and ran, and probably ran well, on its hindlegs upon the ground. It was small brained by our present standards, but it had clever hands with which it handled fruit and beat nuts uponthe rocks, and perhaps caught up sticks and stones to smite itsfellows. IT WAS OUR ANCESTOR. "!!!

And he does not hesitate to give a picture of our ancestor drawn by anartist 500, 000 years after its death. Yet this book so dangerous, soanti-christian, and so untruthful concerning the origin of man, isrecommended by careless librarians, by scholars, and even byChristians. It will take a long time to erase from the mind of theyouth, the false teachings of this book. It is one of the mostcunningly devised plans ever attempted to teach infidelity and atheismin the name of history. 

PLANS FOR MAN PROVE DESIGN. All nature is crowded with evidencethat God intended to create man. He made great preparation for hiscoming. He provided many things useful to man but to no otherspecies. Veins of coal, almost innumerable--the canned sunshine ofpast 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 didnot miss the mark, when he said, "God stored his coal in his great bigcellar for the use of man. " The man who fills his own cellar withprovisions for the winter exhibits no more foresight or design. 

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

All the other minerals likewise were stored in the earth for the useof man alone, --iron, copper, gold, silver, all the valuableminerals, --knowing that man would make use of them. The most preciousand most useful minerals are of no value whatever to any species ofanimals. God foresaw the marvelous inventions of the present and thefuture, and provided the means ages ahead of time. The universe iscrowded so full of design, that there is no room for chance or naturalselection. 

15. EVOLUTION ATHEISTIC

Evolution harmonizes with atheism and kindred false theories. Thisraises a presumption against its truth, as falsehood does not agreewith the truth. It is reconcilable with infidelity and atheism, butnot with Christianity. Many, like Prof. Coulter, of the ChicagoUniversity, endeavor to show that evolution is reconcilable with_religion_--and he does show that it harmonizes with the religionof deism or infidelity. No one doubts that evolution harmonizes withatheism or the religion of Thomas Paine. But why should we be anxiousto reconcile it with Christianity, when there is so little truth tosupport it?

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

Some believe the universe came into being by its own power, thoughthat can not be. Power or force cannot create itself. It must beattached directly or indirectly to a person. No force can bedisconnected from its cause. Detached force is unthinkable. All forcein the universe can be traced to God. Much of the physical power ofthe 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 apart of the power of Almighty God. It approaches infinity. All heat isconvertible into power, and power into heat. Heat, when converted intopower, moves the mighty engines. The power of Niagara may be convertedinto heat and light. The sun had lifted the waters of the wholeNiagara River, and the lakes far above the Falls. Its power isenormous. It lifts up over 1, 000, 000, 000, 000 tons of water to theclouds every day, --more than all the rivers and streams pour into theseas. The sun equals in size a pile of more than a million worlds likeours. Every square yard of surface of this enormous sphere, has enoughheat to push a great liner across the sea, --as much power as in manytons of coal. The amount of heat in the surface of the sun, consistingof more than 2, 284, 000, 000, 000 sq. Mi. , can hardly be imagined. Theheat of one sq. Mi. (3, 097, 600 sq. Yds. ) would drive 3, 000, 000 shipsacross the sea, --150 times as many as are afloat. More than2, 200, 000, 000 times as much heat as the earth receives, goes out intospace. And this enormous amount of heat is but a poor fraction of theheat of 400, 000, 000 suns, few of which are so small as ours. 

A single star, Betelguese, has recently been computed to be215, 000, 000 mi. In diameter, and therefore larger than 10, 000, 000 sunslike ours. A still more recent computation shows stars evenlarger. Antares is 390, 000, 000 mi. In diameter, equal, to 91, 125, 000suns, or 136, 687, 500, 000, 000 worlds. If our sun were in the centre ofthis sun, it would extend beyond the orbit of Mars. Alpha Hercules is300, 000, 000 mi. In diameter. Some stars are so far away that it takeslight 60, 000 years to reach us, at the rate of 186, 000 mi. In asecond. Some say there are 400, 000, 000 enormous suns. Compute, if youcan, the sum total of the power causing the light and heat, and thepower of gravitation controlling these vast swarms of stars. All thispower is the power of God, and a weak fraction of the total. Thispower could not originate itself. It could not grow. It could not comeby 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 isrequired to create, maintain and control this vast universe. Force canno more create itself than matter. God must create and preserve both. It takes almighty power to maintain the universe in existence, as wellas to create it. 

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

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'No God'. " Some translators wouldsupply the words omitted by the Hebrew, and make it read: "The foolhath said in his heart, '_There is_ no God'. " Others, "The foolhath said in his heart, '_I wish there were_ no God'. " It is hardto tell which is the bigger fool, the man who refuses to see thecountless evidences of design, proving His existence; or the man whorefuses to see the terrible wreck of the great universe, and the awfulchaos that would result if there were no God. We can imagine only onegreater fool than either: The man who thinks he can get the world tobelieve, under cover of evolution, that there is no God, and that allthings were evolved by chance, even though it be camouflaged by theterms "natural selection" or "natural law. "

Atheism implies spontaneous generation, which is entirely withoutproof. Indeed, if spontaneous generation were possible at thebeginning of life, it is possible now, and has been possible duringall the ages. But no proof of it has been given. On the contrary, allefforts to secure, by chemistry, the lowest forms of life from deadmatter have been without avail. Dr. Leib, of Chicago University, madeearnest efforts to do so. He failed utterly. If nature, aided by thegenius of man, can not now produce the lowest forms of life frommatter, how could it ever have been done? Prof. Huxley filled jarswith sterilized water, and placed in it sterilized vegetation, andsealed them up, and after 30 years, no life was seen, disprovingspontaneous generation. Pasteur proved that, if milk were sterilized, there would be no development of life by spontaneous generation. Thisdiscovery was of immense practical value, making milk safe to use. Prof. Tyndall, the distinguished physicist, said: "If matter is whatthe world believes it to be, materialism, spontaneous generation, andevolution, or development, are absurdities too monstrous to beentertained by any sane mind. " Dr. Clark Maxwell, anotherdistinguished physicist, says, "I have examined all [theories ofevolution] and have found that every one must have a God to make itwork. " _L'Univers_ says: "When hypotheses tend to nothing lessthan the shutting out of God from the thoughts and hearts of men, andthe diffusion of the leprosy of materialism, the savant who inventsand propagates them is either a criminal or a fool. " Even Darwin seemsto be conscious of a designing mind when he says, "It is difficult toavoid personifying the word Nature. But I mean by nature only theaggregate action and product of many natural laws. " A futile effort toexclude God. Who made these laws?

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

So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a provenhypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity andatheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa. , sent aquestionaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teachingsciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more thanone-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of thesoul, --beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world. Sopernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half ofthe professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels andatheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen. And while weare happy in the conviction that the great majority of professors andteachers of other subjects are Christians, yet one or two atheists orinfidels are sufficient to make havoc of the faith of many, in a greatcollege or university. 

A doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the wellnigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not betrue. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels andatheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation. A greatresponsibility rests upon the authorities who employ such teachers. 

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

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

Atheism, under its own name, has never had many to embrace it. Itsonly hope is to be tolerated and believed under some other name. InRussia, no man is allowed to belong to the ruling (Communist) partyunless 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 teachit, under the specious plea of freedom of thought. 

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

Nathan Leopold, Jr. , and Richard Loeb kidnapped and cruelly murderedRobert Franks. Both were brilliant scholars and atheists. Bothgraduates of universities, though minors, and both were taking apost-graduate course in the University of Chicago. It is asserted andwidely believed that they were encouraged in their atheistic belief bythe teaching of evolution and modernism, and were thus prepared tocommit a crime that shocked the world. 

Most of the writers who advocated evolution became atheists orinfidels; most of the professors who teach it, believe neither in Godnor the immortality of the soul; and the number of students discardingChristianity rose from 15% in the Freshman year to 40% in theSenior. What more proof is needed?

16. BRUTE DESCENT IMPOSSIBLE

According to Prof. R. S. Lull and other evolutionists, "The skull ofthe pithecanthropus is characterized by a limited capacity of abouttwo-thirds that of a man. " Assuming that this skull is that of anormal creature of that age, as is done in all the arguments of "ourfriends, the enemy, " then the pithecanthropus must have lived20, 000, 000 years ago, one-third the period assigned to life. Theyclaim the pithecanthropus lived 750, 000 years ago; later the guess isreduced to 375, 000. Does any one in his senses believe that anape-human animal developed one-third of the normal human brain in375, 000 or 750, 000 years, when it took 59, 250, 000 years to developtwo-thirds of the brain? If one-third of the normal brain developed inthe last 750, 000 years, the rate of development must have been 39. 5times as great as in the preceding 59, 250, 000 years. If one-thirddeveloped in the last 375, 000 years, the rate of development must havebeen 78 times as rapid as in the preceding 59, 625, 000 years. This isincredible. If life began 500, 000, 000 years ago, and one-third thebrain developed in the last 750, 000 years, the rate must have been 332times as rapid as in the preceding 499, 250, 000 years; and 666 times asrapid in 375, 000 years as in the preceding 499, 625, 000 years. Allthese guesses are clearly impossible. 

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

This calculation has been made upon the basis of the estimate of60, 000, 000 years since life began, taken from Prof. H. H. Newman in"Readings in Evolution, " p. 68. But, seeing that even this greatestimate of the period of life is not sufficient for evolution, in aprivate letter to the writer, Prof. Newman raises his guess to500, 000, 000 years. In that case, the pithecanthropus must have livedone-third of 500, 000, 000, or 166, 666, 666 years ago. And, if we arereckless enough to admit the "moderate estimate" of 1, 000, 000, 000years, gravely suggested by Prof. Russell, of Princeton University, itmust have lived 333, 333, 333 years ago. These reckless estimates seemremoved, by the whole diameter of reason, from even a respectableguess. Every new guess seems to make their case more hopeless. And anyguess that they can make, out of harmony with the Scripture statement, can be disproved by cold mathematics. In like manner, if the Piltdownman had the estimated brain capacity of 1070 c. C. , instead of thenormal 1500 c. C. , this fabricated creature must have lived about17, 200, 000 years ago, if life began 60, 000, 000 years ago; and143, 333, 333 years ago, if life began 500, 000, 000 years ago; (c. C. =cubic centimeters). 

Prof. Schaaffhausen, the discoverer, estimated the capacity of theNeanderthal man at 1033 c. C. Then he must have lived 18, 680, 000 yearsago, if we accept the 60, 000, 000 year period; and 311, 333, 333 yearsago, 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 verydoubtful character have been found, and upon this flimsy proof, theyouth of our land are expected by self-styled "scientists" to believeit, even though it leads them into infidelity and atheism, and causesthe loss of their souls. 

Let us take another view. Let us assume that the pithecanthropusreally lived 750, 000 years ago, as claimed, which is 1. 25% of60, 000, 000 years. Therefore, its brain capacity then should have been98. 75% normal, or 1481. 25 c. C. Or 18. 75 c. C. Less than the normal 1500c. C. Also 750, 000 years is only . 15% of 500, 000, 000 years; hence inthat case, the brain should have been 99. 85% normal, or 1497. 75c. C. In either case, the intelligence must have excelled that of manynations and races. All these calculations prove positively that nosuch creatures as these four alleged ape-men ever could have lived inthe age assigned to them; or, if so, that none could have had, at thattime, the low brain capacity claimed. Q. E. D. 

Is it not plain that for the last 2, 000, 000 years out of 60, 000, 000years, the developing human race must have been over 29/30 or 96 2/3%normal, in intelligence, morality, and spirituality? This is greaterthan that of many peoples today. With this high degree ofintelligence, man was capable of great inventions and discoveries. Not a single monument remains. We would expect some great monumentlike the pyramids of Egypt. A race with such advancement, for so manyyears would have been able to reach the heights of invention, discovery, and learning of the present age. Not a whit of evidencecomes 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 600c. 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, 000years; or 373. 5 times as rapid as during the preceding 498, 000, 000years. How was that possible?

17. EIGHT IMPASSABLE GULFS

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

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 beencrossed. In the scheme, the material must become living by spontaneousgeneration; some plants must become invertebrate animals; someinvertebrates must become vertebrates; some marine animals must becomeamphibians; some amphibians must become reptiles; some reptiles mustbecome mammals; some mammals must become humans; some senseless, soulless simians must acquire a soul and become spiritual enough tobear the image of God. 

There is no convincing proof that any of these great and incredibleadvances were ever made. If we estimate the probability of eachtransmutation at 10%, which is too high, then the probability that allthese changes up to man were made is . 1 raised to the 8thpower, . 00000001. Therefore, there is not more than one chance out of100, 000, 000 that these 8 changes were made. And if we estimate theprobability of each great change at . 001, which is doubtless still toohigh, the probability that man took these 8 great steps of evolutionis one out of 1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, or a million, million, million, million. If we estimate the probability of eachchange even at 60%, which is far above all reason, the probability ofman's evolution through these 8 changes is only 1 out of 60, whichmarks an improbability close to an impossibility. The highest estimatewe can reasonably make, destroys all hope that man or even any otherspecies could have come by evolution. Few persons realize howimprobable an event is made which depends upon a number ofpossibilities or even probabilities, until calculated by the rule ofCompound Mathematical Probability. 

Imagine the Copernican or the gravitation theory depending on a numberof possibilities or probabilities! No true theory is built on such anuncertain foundation. 

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

None of these changes is _now_ occurring. There is no spontaneousgeneration now. Darwin himself said that spontaneous generation in thepast was "absolutely inconceivable. " No reptiles are becomingmammals, none becoming birds, no apes or monkeys are becoming men. Nospecies is now transmuted into another, no new species arises. Is notthis proof enough that such great changes never occurred?

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

Besides, we have with us yet the invertebrates that have not yetbecome vertebrates; marine animals that have not become amphibians;amphibians that have not become reptiles; reptiles that have becomeneither mammals nor birds, and a multitude of simians that have notbecome human, and are not moving toward man either in bodily form orintelligence or spirituality. We have the one-celled amoeba, themicroscopic animals, and the lowest forms of animal life. If the greatlaw of progress and advancement to higher forms has prevailed for somany million years, there should be none but the highest species. Allshould have reached the status of human beings and there should benone of the lower forms of life which are so abundant. Changes soradical and vast, stretching through so many ages, would requiremillions of connecting links. If reptiles became hairy mammals, wewould expect fossils of thousands, if not millions, in the transitionstate. If some reptiles were changed into the 12, 000 species of birds, we would expect countless fossils, part reptile, part bird. Only oneis claimed, the archæopteryx (ancient bird), two specimens of whichare known, which had a feathered tail, and which is only a slightmodification of other birds. Many other birds have departed fartherfrom the normal. There should be millions of fossils in the transitionstate if the theory were true. We have proven elsewhere that there isno credible evidence of links connecting man with the monkey family. There would have been many millions. We have shown, at length, thatsome of these great changes, especially the Evolution of man from thebrute, could never have occurred. No one of these nine great advanceswas ever made, but it will suffice to examine now, as examples, twoalleged 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. Mammalsdiffer from reptiles in having breasts (Latin, mammae), a fourchambered heart instead of three, a coat of hair or fur or wool, and awomb for the young. The temperature of the blood of reptiles is as lowas 60 and even 40 degrees, since the temperature of the blood is aboutthe same as the environment, sometimes approaching the freezing point. But mammals have a temperature approaching 100°. We are to believethat one progressive branch of reptiles, which passed through thesieve of natural selection, during the Permian Ice Age, was capable ofbeing adapted to the colder climate. But this mighty chasm betweenreptiles and mammals was crossed unaided by any external interference, unaided by God; then the mammals groped their way, withoutintelligence or design, up to man! The difficulties are too great tosatisfy the serious student. No satisfactory explanation has beengiven. No fossils, part reptile, part mammal, have been found. Wewould naturally expect millions of them. Evidently none everexisted. How could such radical changes be brought about? What causedthe development of hair, fur and wool? The change in the heart, andthe temperature, the formation of the mammae and of the womb? Thereis no evidence of such change. But it is necessary to the scheme. 

2. Some reptiles became birds, they say; whether a pair for each ofthe 12, 000 species of birds or one pair for all, we can not learn. Fornobody knows. They would like for us to believe that thesecold-blooded reptiles with a temperature of 40 to 60 degrees becamebirds with a temperature as high as 107; that wings and feathers weredeveloped, which must have been perfectly useless through the longages during which they were developing; that the wonderfulcontrivances in the wings and feathers were made by senseless reptilesthat did not know what they were doing. Reptiles have athree-chambered heart, making them cold-blooded. Birds have afour-chambered heart, and a temperature higher than that ofman. Reptiles left their eggs to hatch in the sun. Birds, by a fineinstinct, built their nests with care. Some reptiles have 4 feet, some2, some none. All birds have two feet. The bird's structure is so wellsuited for flight and shows the marks of design so clearly, that theclumsy aeroplane is but a poor imitation. Yet to link the 12, 000species of birds to their unknown reptilian ancestors, they show ustwo fossils of the archæopteryx, as the sum total of the evidenceshowing the transition from reptiles to birds. The fossil variesslightly but not essentially from other birds. It has a featheredtail, some teeth and claws. It is probably not a connecting link atall, and if it were, we would expect a million fossils of connectinglinks. All these nine transmutations are devoid of a single sureconnecting link, when we would expect millions in every case. Thesefacts prove that evolution is a delusion and an absurdity. 

18. ANCESTRAL APES AND MONKEYS

Many have taught that man was descended from an ape ormonkey. Evolutionists, ashamed of a doctrine so repugnant to allreason and so revolting to mankind, vainly imagine they can escape theodium of such a view, by declaring that man is not descended from anape 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, page39, says: "When the doctrine of the descent of man was first advanced, superficial and popular writers immediately jumped at the conclusionthat naturalists believed that man was descended from themonkey. This, of course, is quite absurd, as man obviously could notbe descended from a form of life now living. The ape and the monkeyfamily, together with man are probably (?) descended from somegeneralized ape-like form long since perished from the earth. " Supposethis absurd and unsupported guess to be correct. Then the gorillas, chimpanzees, gibbons, orang-outangs and other apes; the baboons andother monkeys; and the lemurs and man were brothers and sisters, orotherwise closely related, and all were descended immediately ornearly so from a common ancestor _lower than any_. Where is thecomfort or gain? Moreover, all the members of this primate family musthave inter-breeded for ages, until, according to the theory, theybecame 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, andthe blood of them all is in our veins! In attempting to rescue us fromthe ape as our ancestor, they have shown that we are descendants ofthe whole monkey family and every species of ape and of many of theirmore disreputable relatives also. Great is evolution!

It certainly would be impossible for one single pair to have becomethe ancestors of the human race, without mixing and interbreeding withtheir kindred primates. Where are the descendants of these mongrelbreeds, part monkey and part man? We would expect all gradations ofmixed animals from monkey to man. "Two or three millions of years agoan 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 oradvance part way between man and the brute? Why are they not nowbecoming human? It is plain to the sincere student that the evolutionof man from the brute is only the product of the imagination of thosewho wish to deny special creation and exclude God from his universe. 

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

19. A STAGGERING SPECULATION

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

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

20. SEX

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

It is still more difficult to explain when sex life began inanimals. There could have been no sex life at first, and perhaps forages. They can not tell us when the animals, by chance, acquired thewonderful adaptation of the sexual life. They have no evidencewhatever. Their guess is no better than that of others. It passescredulity to believe that the sexual life, with all its marvelousdesign, was reached by the invention of irrational animals, when man, with all his powers of reason, invention, and discovery, is helplesseven to understand the great wisdom and power that brought it about. 

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

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

21. MAN HAIRLESS AND TAILLESS

How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question forevolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an accountof all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man mustexplain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin'sexplanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learnedscientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with theleast 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 dosensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? Ifwe try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science ofphrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits oftheir fathers, and males the traits of their mothers. Hence, not themales but the females would become hairless by this ridiculousprocess. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the headand other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women andchildren do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why isthere no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our bruteancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did notbelieve in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that eventhe so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent fromthe back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of themonkey family. If there was any good reason why the human bruteshould lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other speciesof the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by naturalselection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairyanimal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy bruteperish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in greatabundance. 

The best way to get rid of the hair of the brute is for somereconstructing artist, like Prof. J. H. McGregor, to take it off. In apicture widely copied by books in favor of evolution, photographedfrom his "restorations, " the pithecanthropus, the Neanderthal man, andthe Cro-Magnon man are represented almost without hair on the body oreven without beard. Only the Neanderthal man has a tiny CharlieChaplin 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 ourtails? Would not the same causes, if any, cause all the species tolose their tails? According to the laws of biometry, ought we not tofind a retrogression of sections of the human race, who would sportsimian tails and be clothed with simian hair? Or, could naturalselection explain the loss of the tail on the ground that all themonkeys with tails died off, while the tailless ones survived, anddeveloped into human beings? In that case, a tail must have been afatal imperfection. 

22. HYBRIDS

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

Species are immutable. One does not become another, or unite withanother to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed toproduce another species. A few species, so nearly related that we canscarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jackassand the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile. Thezebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewisesterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediatebetween species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget anape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species. 

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

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

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

23. THE INSTINCT OF ANIMALS

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

One of the most familiar illustrations is the instinct of the honeybee. It builds its cells in exact geometric form and we compute, byCalculus, that the form it uses produces the greatest capacity inproportion to the amount of material used. Who taught the bee to buildits cell, displaying greater knowledge than that of many a collegegraduate? Darwin says (Origin of Species), "It can be clearly shownthat the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namelythose of the honey bee, could not possibly have been acquired byhabit. " We quote from Granville's Calculus, p. 119: "We know that theshape of a bee cell is hexagonal, giving a certain capacity for honeywith the greatest possible economy of wax. " This is demonstrated bythe 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 madetheir cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amountof honey, with the least possible consumption of precious wax in theirconstruction. It has been remarked that a skilful workman, withfitting tools and measures, would find it very difficult to make cellsof 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 hexagonalprism, with the basal edges of its six sides, beveled so as to join aninverted pyramid of three rhombs. These rhombs have certain angles, and the three which form the pyramidal base of a single cell on oneside of the comb, enter into the composition of the bases of the threeadjoining cells on the opposite side. "

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

Yet in spite of Darwin's admission, he labors hard to show that "Thereis no real difficulty under changing conditions of life, in naturalselection accumulating to any extent slight modifications of instinctwhich are in any way useful"! How could the working bee conserve thegains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father andthe queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neitherparent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit theirknowledge or their habits to the working bee? Every new swarm of beeswould not know how to build their cells. There is no improvement fromgeneration to generation. Even if instinct in other animals could beaccounted for, evolution can not account for the instinct of theworking 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 theheresy of an absentee God? Here again we get a glimpse of the unerringwisdom of God. 

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

24. SPECIAL CREATION: GEN. I

Evolution can not be true, because it contradicts the inspired word ofGod. We do not speak arbitrarily and say, without proof, that whatevercontradicts the revealed word of God can not be true, although such anattitude could be easily defended. Disregarding all the many othercogent and legitimate arguments in support of a divine revelation, wewill appeal to the remarkable harmony between the story of Creation inGenesis and the modern sciences. This could not be, if God had notrevealed to Moses the story of creation. Moses personally knew nothingrevealed by the sciences of today. And the man of that day who wouldinvent the story of creation, would be sure to conflict with one ormore of the following modern sciences: geology, astronomy, zoology, biology, geography, chemistry, physics, anatomy, philology, archaeology, history, ethics, religion, etc. There is not one chancein a million that a writer of a fictitious account would not have runamuck among many of these sciences, if, like Moses, he had no personalknowledge 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 oferror. "The Babylonian stories of creation are full of grotesque andpolytheistic ideas, while those of the Bible speak only of the oneliving and true God. " "All things, " the Babylonian legend says, "wereproduced at the first from Tiamat. " "The gods came into being in longsuccession, but, at length, enmity arose between them and Tiamat, whocreated monsters to oppose them. Merodach, a solar deity, vanquishedTiamat, cut her body in two, and with one-half of it made a firmamentsupporting the upper waters in the sky, etc. , etc. " The Babyloniangods, like even those of the classics, were criminals fit only forprison or death. 

Alfred Russell Wallace, who, with Darwin, devised the evolutiontheory, says: "There must have been three interpositions of a Divineand supernatural power to account for things as they are: _theagreement of science with Genesis is very striking_: There is agulf between matter and nothing; one between life and the non-living;and a third between man and the lower creation; and science can notbridge them!"

This "striking agreement" between science and Genesis I, is shown bythe fact that at least 11 great events are enumerated in the sameorder 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. Aclearing expanse, or firmament; 5. The elevation of the land and theformation of the seas; 6. Grass, herbs and fruit trees appear; 7. Thesun, moon and stars _appear_; 8. Marine animals were created;9. "Winged fowls" were created; 10. Land animals were created; 11. Manwas created. 

The chance of guessing the exact order of these 11 great events isascertained by the law of permutations-the product of the numbers from1 to 11, which is 39, 916, 800. Therefore, Moses had one chance out of39, 916, 800 to guess the correct order of these 11 great events, asrevealed both by science and revelation. If, for example, the first 11letters of the alphabet were arranged in some unknown miscellaneousorder, any one would have but one chance out of 39, 916, 800 to guessthe order. If Moses did not have the order revealed to him, he nevercould have guessed it. Therefore, he was inspired and was told theorder. 

This mathematical demonstration annihilates the contradicting theoryof evolution. At once it proves that the account was divinelyinspired, and man came by special creation and not by evolution. Thefact that the language of Genesis is in remarkable harmony with allproven 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 tomean a long period, as advocated by many biblical scholars, or aliteral day of 24 hours, followed, it may be, by years or ages ofcontinuance of the work, before the next day's work of 24 hours began. 

Believing that this interpretation does no violence to the text, andthat it is especially in harmony with the statements in the fourthcommandment and elsewhere in the Bible, it is here briefly presentedas one interpretation, showing the marvelous harmony betweenrevelation and the proven, and even the generally accepted, scientifictheories. The stately procession of events is the same, no matterwhich interpretation is accepted, and doubtless will remain, even ifboth must yield to another and better interpretation. This majesticdivine order, in harmony with both science and revelation, removes alldoubt of special creation. 

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

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

THE CREATION--GENERAL STATEMENT

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

DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE ORDER OF CREATION

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

"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. Andthe light appeared, so that the day could now be distinguished fromthe 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'swork. 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 notnecessarily 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 thethick clouds above, firmly suspended in the air'. " This may havecontinued 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 togetherinto one place (seas and oceans), and let the dry land appear'. " Thecontraction of the cooling earth caused the elevation of the land, andthe draining of the waters into the seas. The geologist Lyell says, "All land has been under water. " Hitchcock says, "The surface of theglobe has been a shoreless ocean. " "And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein isthe seed thereof, after its kind. " Though the sun was not yet visibleon account of dense clouds and vapors, the warm, humid atmosphere wassuitable for the grass, herbs, and fruit trees, --three great classeswhich represented the vegetable kingdom. Ages may have againintervened. 

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

"And God said, 'Let lights be seen in the open expanse of heaven, todivide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and forseasons, and for days and years'. " "And God made the two great lightsto _appear_, " since neither had been seen through the thickclouds, "the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light torule the night. He made the stars also to _appear_. " Thoughcreated first, the stars would appear last. Ages more may haveintervened. 

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 theheaven'. " "And God created great sea monsters, and every livingcreature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly, aftertheir kinds, and every winged fowl after its kind. " Geology and Mosesalike testify that swarms of animals filled the seas. The ages rolledon while they "filled the waters of the seas and fowl multiplied onthe earth. "

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

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

The body chosen was higher and better than the form of any animal. Itresembles the bodies of mammals of the highest type. Why should itnot? The vast number of animal species, of almost every conceivablesize and shape, could not furnish a form so well adapted to the use ofman as that which the Creator gave him. Would it have been better ifman had been created in the form of a fish, a lizard, a serpent, adog, or a horse, or a bird? How could the body have been createdwithout bearing resemblance to some form of the million species ofanimals? A resemblance can be traced through the whole creation, thematerial as well as the animal, but it does not follow that onespecies is descended from another, but that there was one generalplan, and one God. The existence of man, who can not be otherwiseaccounted for, proves the existence of the Creator. 

25. ANALOGY; MATHEMATICS, LAWS

Analogy raises a presumption against evolution. Analogy is not ademonstration. It is an illustration that strengthens and confirmsother arguments. Both the science of mathematics and all physical lawsmust have come into being in an instant of time. Evolution is notGod's usual method of creation. 

1. MATHEMATICS. --There is no evolution in the science ofmathematics. There is no change or growth or development. God is theauthor of all mathematical principles. The square described on thehypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of thesquares described on the other two sides, because he made it so. Thecircumference of a circle is approximately 3. 1416 times the diameterbecause he made it so. The wonderful calculations by logarithms, whether by the common system with a base of 10, or the Napieriansystem with a base of 2. 718+ a decimal that never terminates, arepossible and reliable only because God made them so. Think what greatintelligence is required by the Napierian system, to raise a decimalthat never terminates, to a decimal power that never terminates, inorder to produce an integral number. Yet God has computedinstantaneously every table of logarithms, and every othermathematical table, --no matter how difficult. Thus we have positiveproof of the presence everywhere of a great intelligent Being, and wecatch a glimpse of that mind that must be infinite. He created thewhole system of mathematics, vast beyond our comprehension, at once. Apart could not exist without the whole. No growth; no change; noevolution; no improvement, because the whole system was perfect fromthe first. Reasoning from analogy, is it not reasonable to say thatthe God who flashed upon the whole universe, the limitless system ofmathematics in an instant, also created man as Moses said? Analogysupports the doctrine of the special creation of man in a day. 

The great system of mathematics which could not exist without acreator, is so extensive that 40 units are taught in a singleuniversity. New subjects are added, new text books written, newformulas devised, new principles demonstrated, --and the subject is byno means exhausted. He, by whose will this fathomless science cameinto 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 theuniverse, came into being by the will of God, in an instant oftime. No growth, no change, no development, no evolution. Thepresumption is that God created all things in a similar way. If it waswisest and best to bring into being the great science of mathematicsand fix all physical laws, --all in a moment of time, why should heconsume 60, 000, 000 or 500, 000, 000 years in bringing man intoexistence? Evolution is all out of harmony with God's other methods ofwork. 

Gravitation was complete from the first. No growth; no evolution. Thelaws of light, heat, electricity, etc. , remain unchanged. Lighttravels with the same unvarying velocity, as when, 60, 000 years ago, it started from the distant star-cloud. Some estimate our universe tobe 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 evolutionis needed. Does not this furnish a presumption that God could and didcreate man complete and full grown with a wonderful body, and a soulin his own image?

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

Matter did not create itself, nor evolute nor grow. It must have beencreated instantaneously by the power of God, whether in a nebulouscondition or not. So enchanting is their theory, that many profess tobelieve that not only were all species of animals and plants evolvedfrom a single germ, but that even matter itself was evolved out ofnothing. This theory of evolution as wide as the universe, asponderous as the stars, is supported only by the weak stork legs ofwistful possibility. 

26. DESPERATE ARGUMENTS

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

The following absurd speculation, by a lecturer in the "UniversityExtension Course, " was printed in the Philadelphia Bulletin: "Evidencethat early man climbed trees with their feet lies in the way we wearthe heels of our shoes, --more at the outside. A baby can wiggle itsbig toe without wiggling its other toes, --an indication that it onceused its big toe in climbing trees. We often dream of falling. Thosewho fell out of the trees some 50, 000 years ago and were killed, ofcourse, had no descendants (?) So those who fell and were not hurt, ofcourse, lived, and so we are never hurt in our dreams of falling"!While we read these feeble arguments, which the newspapers would callpiffle, how can we escape the conviction that evolution is indesperate need of argument? Imagine the Copernican theory relying onsuch piffle for support. Is there a freak idea without a freakprofessor to support it?

27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED

Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four andProf. 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 theformation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missinglinks exists. 

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

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

5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are notinherited. 

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

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

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

9. Even if Darwinism should explain the _survival_ of thefittest, it does not explain the _arrival_ of the fittest, whichis far more important. 

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

11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are _quantitative_, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between speciesare _qualitative_. " Growth and development in one species doesnot produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. MilesDarden, of Tenn. , was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, butremained a member of the human species, though he was as high andheavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, wholived in the days of Augustus. 

12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to theextreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequentrigor of selection. " Overproduction and shortage of space and foodmight sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in thepast? 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 ofhistorical interest. "

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

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

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

28. SCIENTISTS CONDEMN EVOLUTION

Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of thehighest authorities in the world, said:--"Nine-tenths of the talk ofevolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and whollyunsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utterfalsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not aparticle of evidence of the transmutation of species. " Is a man inthat 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, orwas, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of allnaturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, atthis time, a _shadow of scientific evidence_. "

Prof. Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: "Theattempt to find the transition from the animal to man has ended intotal failure. The middle link has not been found and never willbe. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science thatman descended from the ape or from any other animal. "

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

Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "Thetheory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous inits tendency.... There is not a fact known to science, tending to showthat 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 ofbiologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man amongthe 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 recordof the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in theabrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and withoutapparent predecessors.... Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to theactual transformation of one species into another. No such case iscertainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except whatis told in Scripture. "

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

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

Dr. James Orr, of Edinburg University, says: "The greatest scientistsand theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to beabsolutely dead. "

Dr. Traas, a famous palaeontologist, concludes: "The idea that mankindis descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the mostfoolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man. " Doesthis apply to H. G. Wells?

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

Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most moderninvestigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrineof evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not bemaintained. "

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 distinctcreation, not in a gradual variation from some original type. "

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

UNSOLICITED TESTIMONIALS

Agents for this 20, 000 edition may show these selections, culled froma mass of warm world-wide testimonials, by able critics, authors, professors, editors, magazines, reviews, governors of states, andrulers of nations. "Unanswerable;" "an absolute demonstration;""masterful;" "true to title;" "clear and convincing;" "scholarly andlogical;" "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 effectivepolemic on the subject, I have yet seen. You have marshalled theevidence of mathematics against the delusion of man's descent frombrute ancestry, with telling effect. "--PHILIP MAURO, Noted Attorneyand Author. 

"Evolution Disproved is not only a strong book from the scientific andargumentative viewpoint, but is also unique in many ways. We wisheverybody would and could read it, especially those who are enamoredwith Evolution. "--PROF. L. S. KEYSER, D. D. , in the Bible Champion. 

"Evolution Disproved is a sober, fully sustained and very remarkablebook vindicating its title. It surely is one of the most conclusive ofbooks, tearing to shreds Evolution pretensions. Absolutelyunanswerable; in the very front rank of masterly books. "--THEMETHODIST. 

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

"You certainly have given a masterful treatment of thissubject. "--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 offacts. "--W. C. F. A. , which accordingly rewarded the author with honorarymembership. 

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

"The greatest book of its kind. "--PROF. M. F. LARKIN, head of theInternational 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 oflarge 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 everyclaim of Darwinism. "--DR. H. B. RILEY, President W. C. F. A. 

"Of all books against evolution, the most unique. Its arguments areeffective 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 offoreign librarians and national rulers. Write what YOU think!

PART TWO

EVIDENCE ANSWERED

29. PALEONTOLOGY

1. The PITHECANTHROPUS, which is a high sounding name for anape-man (from Grk. Pithekos, ape, and anthropos, man) was found byDr. Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, in 1892, in Trinil in the islandof Java. It lived, it is said, 750, 000 years ago. He found, buried inthe Pleistocene beds, 40 feet below the surface in the sand, _theupper portion of a skull, a tooth and a thigh bone_. "It wasfortunate, " says Dr. Chapin, "that the most distinctive portions ofthe human (sic) frame should have been preserved, because from thesespecimens, we are able to reconstruct (?) the being, and to say withassurance (!) that his walk was erect in manlike posture, that he hadmental power considerably above the ape, (it will not do to be toodefinite) and his powers of speech were somewhat limited. (A string ofguesses wholly unwarranted. ) This man stood half way between theanthropoid and the existing men. "--Social Evolution, p. 61. 

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

The small section of the brain pan, weighing but a few ounces, wasfound about 50 feet from the thigh bone. One tooth was found 3 feetfrom the fragment of skull, and one near the thigh bone, _50 feetaway_. Since the small section of the brain pan belonged to achimpanzee, and the thigh bone is that of a man, is it likely thatthese scattered bones belonged to the same creature? Even if they did, is it likely that these bones would be preserved in the sand 750, 000years, or even 375, 000 years according to a later estimate? We knowthat petrified skeletons, encased in rock, may be millions of yearsold, but where are the unpetrified skeletons of men who lived even5, 000 years ago? If unpetrified skeletons could last 750, 000 years, there would be millions of them. Without a doubt, this skull of achimpanzee, and femur of a man, belong to a modern beast and a modernman, buried by floods or earthquakes, or some other convulsion ofnature, or by slow accumulations. It is said that the Jerusalem ofChrist's day is buried 20 feet under the surface, by the quietaccretions of the dust of 1900 years. Rome also has been covered up inrecent centuries. It would be easy for 40 feet of sand to accumulateover the bones of a modern man or chimpanzee in a valley, in a fewcenturies, if 20 feet of dust accumulated on the mountain city ofJerusalem in 1900 years. 

Elsewhere we have shown that an ape-man with a cranium of two-thirdsnormal capacity must have lived at least 20, 000, 000 years ago, --onethird 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. Itis absolutely impossible that a normal creature of the alleged mentalcapacity could have lived 750, 000 years ago, much less 375, 000, according to a later estimate cutting in two the first one. But thequickest way to disprove these wild guesses is to check them up by amathematical test. If these bones are normal, such an ape-man couldnot have lived at the time assigned. If they are not normal, theyprove nothing whatever for evolution. They can be duplicated now. 

We are asked to believe that these scattered bones, --some the bones ofa modern brute, some the bones of a modern man--were preserved in thesand 750, 000 years and belonged to an ancestor of the human race, while of the millions of his generation and of the generationsfollowing for many thousands of years, we have not a trace! We areasked upon such a flimsy pretext to accept a theory, unsupported by asingle compelling argument, and irreconcilable with numerous facts, --atheory which takes away man's hope of immortality, destroys faith inGod 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 hehim. "

One distinguished evolutionist has said, "We might as well be made outof monkey as out of mud. It is mud or monkey. " Most of us wouldretort, "I would rather be created a human being out of the filthiestmud by Almighty God than owe my existence to the brainiest monkey thatever lived. " Please note, "The Lord God formed man of the _dust_of the ground, " not _mud_. The evolutionists are as wild in theirexegesis 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, isa "human jaw of great antiquity, discovered in the _sands_ of theMauer River, near Heidelberg. " Hence, it is called the Mauer jaw, orthe Heidelberg Jaw, or Heidelberg man, or the high sounding Latin nameof Homo Heidelbergensis. It needs all the names that can be given toit, to elevate it to the dignity of an ancestor. "This jaw was foundin undisturbed stratified _sand_, (sand again) at the depth ofabout 69 feet from the summit of the deposit. " Dr. Schoetensack, thediscoverer, says, "Had the teeth been absent, it would have beenimpossible to diagnose it as human. "

They say it is 700, 000 years old, preserved in sand. A later estimatesays 375, 000 years. (Any wild guess will do. ) It resembles the jaw ofan ape, and the tooth of a man. Was it not likely the abnormal jaw ofa modern man, in historic time swept into the sands by the freshetsand floods of a few centuries? It is only fair to say that manyscientists of the evolutionary school, do not believe the Heidelbergman an ancestor of our race. "These remains, " says one, "show no traceof being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape. " Some claimit a connecting link. Others deny it. Some say the find is of theutmost value; others say it is worthless. All are guesses, wildguesses 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 distinguishedscientist to have the same appearance and peculiarities as theHeidelberg jaw, it is easy to believe that this jaw can be duplicatedin many graveyards. Greater abnormalities, in great numbers, can befound in the skeletons of modern man. Without doubt, this jaw belongsto modern man, and has no evidential value at all in favor ofevolution. 

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

3. THE PILTDOWN MAN (OR FAKE). The next fragments of bones, inchronological order, upon which evolutionists rely to prove theirimpossible theory, has been called the Piltdown man. It has been moretruthfully called the Piltdown fake. Dr. Chapin gravely tells us(Social Evolution, p. 67): "During the years 1912, a series offragments of a human skull and a jaw bone were found associated witheolithic implements and the bones of extinct mammals in Pleistocenedeposits on a plateau, 80 feet above the river bed, at Piltdown, Fletching, Sussex, Eng..... The remains were of great importance. Thediscoverers regard this relic as a specimen of a distinct genus of thehuman species and it has been called Eoanthropus Dawsoni. This extinctman lived in Europe hundreds of thousands of years ago. " We havepassed over 200, 000 to 300, 000 years since the Heidelberg man, thathave not yielded a scrap of bone, though according to the theory, countless millions of ape-men must have lived in various stages ofdevelopment, in that great stretch of time. Why were not some of thempreserved? Simply because there were no ape-men. There are countlessrelics of apes, but none of ape-men. Even Wells says: "At a greatopen-air camp at Solutre, where they seem to have had annualgatherings for many centuries, it is estimated there are the bones of100, 000 horses. " Would we not expect as many bones of ape-men? WhileWells says the bones of 100, 000 horses were found in a singlelocality, Dr. Ales Hrdlicka says that the bones of 200, 000 prehistorichorses were found in another place. Why should we not find, for thesame reason, the bones of millions of ape-men and ape-women in 750, 000years? Instead of millions we have the alleged fragments of 4, all ofwhich 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 theskull_, and a canine tooth, which the zealous evolutionists locatedin the lower right jaw, when it belonged in the upper left; later, twomolar teeth and two nasal bones, --scarcely a double hand full inall. An ape-man was "reconstructed" made to look like an ape-man, according to the fancy of the artist. The artist can create anape-man, even if God could not create a real man! But scientists saidthe teeth did not belong to the same skull, and the jaw could not beassociated with the same skull. Ales Hrdlicka says, "The jaw and thetooth belong to a fossil chimpanzee. " Conscientious scientists saidthat the pieces of the jaw and skull could not belong to the sameindividual. They constructed a scarecrow from the bones of an ape andof a man, and offer this, without the batting of an eye, as ascientific proof of the antiquity of man. The great anthropologist ofworld-wide reputation, Prof. Virchow, said: "In vain have Darwin'sadherents sought for connecting links which should connect man withthe monkey. _Not a single one has been found_. This so-calledpro-anthropus, which is supposed to represent this connecting link, has not appeared. No true scientist claims to have seen him. " Sir RayLancaster, writing to H. G. Wells, concerning the Piltdown find, says, "We are stumped and baffled. " Yet in spite of all this, nearly1, 000, 000 persons annually pass through the American Museum of NaturalHistory in New York, and view the "reconstruction" according to theartist's fancy, of the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, thePiltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, the "ancestors of the humanrace;" and the multitude of high school students and teachers, as wellas the general public, are not told how dubious and unscientific therepresentation is. 

The brain capacity of the Piltdown individual (man or ape) is set downby his discoverers at 1070 c. C. , which is 28 2/3% short of the normalskull capacity, 1500 c. C. Therefore, he must have lived 17, 200, 000years ago, if we accept the estimate of 60, 000, 000 years since lifebegan; or 143, 333, 333 years ago, if we accept the later guess of500, 000, 000 years. It could not have lived near the time assigned. Inshort, no guess of the origin of man that differs materially from thetime assigned in the word of God, can be harmonized with the facts. 

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

Dr. Chapin says, "The first important discovery of the existence of anearly example of mankind differing markedly from any living (?) and ofa decidedly lower type, was made in 1857, when a part of a skull wasfound in a cave near Dusseldorf, Germany. The bones consisted of theupper portion of a cranium, remarkable for its flat retreating curve, the upper arm and thigh bones, a collar bone, and rib fragments. " Fromthese fragments, an ape-man has been created (by the artist), about 5ft. 3 in. High, strong, fierce in look, and having othercharacteristics 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 began60, 000, 000 years ago; or 30, 666, 666 years ago, if life began500, 000, 000 years ago. 

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

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

Some evolutionists say that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, form an unbroken line ofdescent from the ape, each in turn becoming less like the ape, andmore like man. Others claim that the pithecanthropus was the end of aspecial branch of the apes; the Heidelberg man the last of anotherextinct branch; the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man, likewise thelast of other extinct species. In this case, all four finds have noevidential value whatever. All these confusing guesses from evidenceso scant and uncertain, stamp evolution a "science falsely so called. "

If these branches, species, or races of ape-like creatures ended, asclaimed, in the age to which these alleged remains belonged, theycould not have been the ancestors of the human race, and these allegedlinks were not links at all. Some evolutionists say that theNeanderthal race became extinct 25, 000 years ago. If so, they were notour ancestors. We are curious to know what caused the extinction ofall these races. Prof. R. S. Lull confesses, "However we account forit, the fact remains that ancient men are _rare_. " Most unbiasedstudents would say such men never existed. The entire absence of humanremains during the 750, 000 years and more is a demonstration againstthe brute origin of man, and a proof of special creation. 

It will be remembered that there is no complete skeleton among all theremains, nor enough parts to make one altogether, nor to make anylarge part of a skeleton, --not even an entire skull. What bones arefound are not joined together, and some of them scattered so widelyapart, that no one can be certain they belong to the sameindividual. Some of the bones belong to an ape, and some toman, --doubtless modern man. Ardent evolutionists, with a zeal worthyof a better cause, have taken a fractional bone of a man, and a boneof 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 byevolutionists. And all these doubtful relics would not fill a smallmarket basket. Yet some are ready to say that evolution is no longer aguess or a theory, but a proven fact. Text books like Chapin's SocialEvolution are placed in the hands of pupils giving only the argumentsin favor, and the student, even if disposed to question this flimsyand unsupported theory, is helpless in the hands of an adroitprofessor. Dr. Gruenberg's high school text book teaches that man isdescended from the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg, the Piltdown andthe Neanderthal man, without the slightest intimation that suchdescent is at all disputed or questioned. What right has anyone toteach this false and unproved theory as the truth?

30. CONFESSED COLLAPSE OF "PROOF"

The claim that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdownman, and the Neanderthal man, were the ancestors of man, collapsesunder the admissions of evolutionists themselves. The eminent Wassmansays: "There are numerous fossils of apes, the remains of which areburied in the various strata from the lower Eocene to the close of thealluvial epoch, but _not one connecting link_ has been foundbetween their hypothetical ancestral forms and man at the presenttime. The whole hypothetical pedigree of man is _not supported by asingle fossil genus or a single fossil species_" (all italicsours). Darwin says: "When we descend to details, _we can prove thatnot one species has changed_. " How, then, can man be descended fromthe brute?

Even H. G. Wells, who seems ready to endorse the most extravagantviews, says (Outline of History, p. 69), "We can not say that it (thepithecanthropus) is a direct human ancestor. " On p. 116, is a "Diagramof the Relationship of Human Races, " showing that neither thepithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, nor theNeanderthal man, could have been an ancestor of the human race, because each were the last of their species, and therefore had nodescendants. 

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

Dr. Osborn says that the Heidelberg man "shows no trace of beingintermediate between man and the anthropoid ape. " Again, speaking ofthe teeth of the St. Brelade man, Dr. Osborn says, "This specialfeature alone would exclude the Neanderthals from the ancestry of thehigher races. "

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

Prof. Cope, a distinguished anatomist, says, "The femur [of thepithecanthropus] is that of a man, it is in no sense a connectinglink. "

In his "Men of the Old Stone Age, " Dr. Osborn puts thepithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and theNeanderthal man, on limbs which _terminate abruptly as extinctraces_. They can, in no sense, then, be the ancestors of man, orconnecting links. Why, then, do they cling so desperately to thesealleged proofs, when they admit they have no evidential value? Onlysheer desperation, just as a drowning man will clutch a straw. 

Dr. W. E. Orchard says: "The remains bearing on this issue, which havebeen found are very few, and their _significance is hotly disputedby scientists themselves, --both their age, and whether they are humanor animal, or mere abnormalities_. "

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

Prof. Bronco, of the Geological and Palaeontological Institute ofBerlin University, says, "_Man appeared suddenly in the Quaternaryperiod. Palaeontology tells us nothing on the subject, --it knowsnothing of the ancestors of man_. "

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

31. PICTURES IN CAVERNS

To bolster up the hypothesis, that some of the scraps of bonesbelonged to ape-men; who lived about 50, 000 years ago, we are toldthat, in many caverns there are paintings of animals, some of whichare extinct, proving that the artists were ape-men of advancingintellect, living in that day. These drawings are rude, and inexact, and the resemblance to extinct animals rather fanciful. If the writerwere to try to draw a picture of a horse on the stone walls of a darkcavern, with no light, it would be just as likely to resemble anextinct animal, or possibly an animal that never did live and neverwill. Many of the paintings are found in the depths of unlit caverns, often difficult of access. How could they paint any picture in thedark, when even fire was unknown, and the torch and lamp-wick had notyet been invented? And how could they make a ladder, or erectscaffolding of any sort in that rude age, before there were inventionsof any kind? Yet they tell us that the frescoes on the ceiling of thedark 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 colorsare used, brown, red, black, yellow, and white; and that thesedrawings and colors have remained undisturbed and unchanged throughthese long ages. Is it easier to believe this, than to believe thatthese drawings were made by modern man, using modern inventions? Atheory left to such support, must be poverty-stricken in argumentindeed. 

32. VESTIGIAL ORGANS

The claim is made that the so-called rudimentary organs in the humanbody such as the appendix, are the remnants of more complete organsinherited from our animal ancestors. It is a strange argument that aonce complete and useful organ in our alleged animal ancestors, whenit becomes atrophied in man, causes such an improvement and advance, as to cause man to survive, when his ancestors with more perfectorgans became extinct. Man with less perfect organs became thedominant species. If the perfect organ were better than therudimentary organ, how can man be the "survival of the fittest"? Ifrudimentary organs are a proof of descent from animals with moreextensive, if not more perfect, organs, then both man and monkeys mustbe descended from the rat, which has the longest proportionateappendix of all. If unused muscles speak of our ancestry, the horsehas the strongest claim to be our ancestor. 

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

Physicians have found the appendix very useful in preventingconstipation, which its removal usually increases. If we only knewenough, we would, no doubt, discover a beneficial use for all theso-called vestigial organs. Our ignorance is no argument against thewisdom of their creation. The claim that human hair is vestigial isspoiled by the fact that there is none on the back where most abundanton simians. 

33. SEROLOGY, OR BLOOD TESTS

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

It is also stated as a fact that mare's milk more nearly resembleshuman milk than that of any other animal save the ass, a nearlyrelated species--to the mare, let us hope, not to us. Because of thisresemblance, it is reported by Dr. Hutchinson that, "One of the largedairy companies in England now keeps a stock of milch asses for thepurpose of supplying asses' milk for delicate human babes. "

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

Dr. W. W. Keen, Prof. Emeritus of Jefferson College, Phila. , in hisbook, "I believe in God and in Evolution, " on p. 48 says, "Here againyou perceive such identity of function, that the thyroid gland ofanimals, when given as a remedy to man, performs precisely the samefunction as the human thyroid. Moreover, it is not the thyroid glandfrom the anthropoid apes that is used as a remedy but that from themore lowly sheep. " Again the force of Dr. Keen's argument goes toprove, so far as it has any weight, that we have a nearer kinship tothe 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 fromthe cow and serums from the horse, not from any species of monkey, towhich 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 thatthere is any exact mathematical ratio between the degrees ofrelationship indicated by the blood tests, and those which are shownby anatomical and palaeontological evidence.... It could hardly bemaintained that an ostrich and a parrot are more nearly allied than awolf and a hyena, and yet that would be the inference from the bloodtests. "

Prof. Rossle, in 1905, according to McCann, presented evidence to showthat the blood reaction does not in any manner indicate how closelyany two animals are related; and that evidence based on resemblance ofblood is not trustworthy in support of a common relationship. In manycases, transfusions of the human blood into apes have positivereactions. We do not make pets of the ape, baboon or chimpanzee, butof the dog whose traits are far more nearly human. If any bruteancestor is possible, have not the evolutionists guessed the wronganimal?

34. EMBRYOLOGY

Embryology, or the Recapitulation Theory, is the last, and perhaps theleast important of the claims advanced in favor of evolution. It isclaimed that the whole history of evolution is briefly repeated in theearly stages of embryonic life. W. B. Scott, in the "Theory ofEvolution, " says, "Thirty years ago, the recapitulation theory waswell nigh universally accepted. Nowadays it is very seriouslyquestioned, and by some high authorities is altogether denied. "

It is hard to see why the history of the species should be repeated bythe embryo. It is difficult to crowd the history of ages into a fewdays or weeks. It must be enormously abbreviated. It is a physicalimpossibility. Changes caused by many environments must take place inthe same environment, contradicting the theory of evolution. So manyexceptions must be made that there can be no universal law. Suchgeneral similarity as we find in embryonic life, may be accounted for, on the ground that the Creator used one general plan with unlimitedvariation, never repeating himself so as to make two faces or twoleaves 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 laterhand. " It is hard to construct a syllogism, showing the force of theargument from Embryology. Try it. 

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

PART THREE

THE SOUL

35. THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL

Evolution fails to account for the origin of the body of man. Stillmore emphatically, does it fail to account for the origin of the soul, or spiritual part of man. This is part of the stupendous task ofevolution. Its advocates give it little or no attention. We are notsurprised. If they _could_ show the evolution of the human body_probable_ or even _possible_, they can never account forthe origin of the soul, save by creation of Almighty God. We can notrelease evolutionists upon the plea that they cannot account for thefaculties and spiritual endowments of man. This is a confession ofcomplete failure. Though invisible to the eye or the microscope, theyare positive realities. They can not be dismissed with a wave of thehand or a gesture of contempt. We have a right to demand anexplanation for every phenomenon connected with the body or soul ofman. The task may be heavy, and even impossible, yet every hypothesismust bear every test or confess failure. They have undertaken topropose 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 cannot be the product of the arrangement of the material of the brain, asthe materialists do vainly teach. It can not be the product ofevolution, nor a growth from the father or mother. The soul is nottransmitted to be modified or changed. It is indivisible. The soul ofthe child is not a part of the soul of either parent. The parentssuffer no mental loss from the new soul. It must be created before itcan grow. God creates each soul without doubt, and so God created thesouls of Adam and Eve. If creation is possible now, it was possible atthe beginning of the race. If God creates the soul now, analogyteaches strongly the creation of the souls of Adam and Eve. Ifevolution be true, there was no creation in the past, and is nonenow. This is contradicted by the facts every day and every hour. 

36. PERSONALITY

An evolutionist writes: "We do not undertake to account forpersonality. " We reply, "That is a part of your problem. You haveundertaken to solve the riddle of the universe by excluding allevidence of an existing and active God, and we can not release youbecause a feature of the problem may be unusually difficult orembarrassing, or even fatal to your theory. It is a fight to the deathin the interest of truth; and we purpose to use every weapon ofscience against a theory so unscientific, so improbable, so farreaching, and so baneful in its effects. It takes faith, hope andcomfort from the heart of the Christian, destroys belief in God, andsends multitudes to the lost world. "

Personality is consciousness of individuality. When did personalitybegin? When did any members of the species become conscious ofpersonality? When did they begin to realize and to say in thought, "Iam a living being. " What animals are conscious of personality? Any ofour cousins of the monkey tribe? Is the horse conscious ofpersonality, or the ox, the cat or the dog? If so, does the skunk havepersonality, the mouse, the flea, the worm, the tadpole, themicroscopic animal? If so, do our other cousins have personality, --thetrees, the vines, the flowers, the thorn and the brier, the cactus andthe thistle, and the microscopic disease germs? If so, when didpersonality begin? With the first primordial germ? If so, were theretwo personalities when the germ split in two, and became two, animaland plant? You can not split a man up into two parts with apersonality to each part. Personality is indivisible. It is aconsciousness of that indivisibility. If personality began anywherealong the line, where, when, and how did it originate? Was itspontaneous, 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 nosense the product of evolution. God made man a living soul. 

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

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

37. INTELLECT, EMOTIONS AND WILL

The activity and energy of the soul are shown in the intellect, theemotions and the will. What evidence of these do we find in the animalworld? Do we find intellect in the lobster, emotions in a worm, orwill 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 havethe emotions of love, hate, envy, pity, remorse or sympathy? Has aworm 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 howdid they begin? No one can answer, because there is not a trace ofproof that they ever existed. 

Will natural selection explain the development of the mentalfaculties? Was art developed because those who lacked it perished? Dowe account for the musical faculty, because those who could not singperished? Some still live who ought to be dead! Do we account forhumor because they perished who could not crack a joke? Will alleventually perish but the Irish, who will survive by their wit? Isanything mentioned in science quite so ridiculous as naturalselection?

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

38. ABSTRACT REASON

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

If reason came not from God, but from evolution, should we not expectit well developed in evolutionary man, since for the last 3, 000, 000years he must have been 95 to 100 per cent, normal. If we grant theestimate of 500, 000, 000 years, he would have been 99. 4% normal for thelast 3, 000, 000 years. Would we not expect in that time a world ofinventions and discoveries, even surpassing those of the last 100years? The Chinese claim a multitude of inventions and a race sonearly 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 intelligentcreatures ever lived prior to Adam is proven by lack of affirmativeevidence. If it be true, as Romanes declared, that the power ofabstract reason in all the species was only equal to that of a child15 months old, then each species would possess less than one millionthof that. 

39. CONSCIENCE

If the origin of the mental faculties can not be accounted for byevolution, much less can the moral faculty, the religious nature andspirituality be accounted for. 

The most confirmed evolutionist will not claim that the tree or thevine or the rose, or perhaps any animal, has a conscience. If, however, conscience is a growth or development, why should it notexist 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 rightor wrong, of justice or injustice? What animal has ever shown regretfor a wrong, or approval of right in others? If conscience is adevelopment within the reach of every species, many of the million ormore, no doubt, would have shown some conscience long ago. 

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

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

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

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

The heart sickens at the brightest picture evolution can paint. Thedifficulty of showing the evolution of the body is insuperable, butthe evolution of the soul, with all its mental, moral and spiritualequipment, is an absolute impossibility. Small wonder thatevolutionists are unwilling to discuss the origin of the soul. 

40. SPIRITUALITY

Does any plant or animal worship God? How much theology does a cowknow? What does the horse think about God? What animal lives with ananxious 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 knowsanything about God, or ever thinks of worshiping Him. 

Man alone worships God. When did he begin? The idea of God seems to bein the hearts of all except the dupes of evolution, and theBolshevists of Russia. The great problem to explain is how the worshipof 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, arenaturally and easily explained upon the basis of creation, butevolution can not account for them at all. 

About 2, 000, 000 years ago, we are told, man and the monkey family werechildren of the same parents. These children headed species with aneven start. Yet man alone developed personality, consciousness, intelligence, and all the equipment of the soul; all the othersremained stationary. This is incredible. It is inconsistent withmathematical probability. Is it likely that one species and one aloneout of a million, with similar environments, would reach these highmental and spiritual attainments? No! "God created man in his ownimage, in the image of God created he him, "-Gen. 1:27. Thisdeclaration explains all the difficulties which are insuperable to theevolutionist. 

"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 (?) universityprofessor asserted, but a likeness in _knowledge, righteousness andholiness_. No animal is made in the image of God. There is not thetrace of a soul in all animal creation. How could the soul of mandevelop from nothing?

God is still creating new creatures in Christ Jesus, in righteousnessand true holiness, which can not come by evolution, for sinfulcreatures can only grow in sinfulness, until the creative power of Godmakes them new creatures, as the following study in Eugenics willshow: Elizabeth Tuttle, the grandmother of Jonathan Edwards, theeminent scholar and divine, was, according to H. E. Walter, a "womanof great beauty, of tall and commanding appearance, striking carriage, of strong, extreme intellectual vigor, and mental grasp akin torapacity, but _with an extraordinary deficiency in moral sense. Shewas divorced from her husband on the ground of adultery and other_IMMORALITIES. The evil trait was in the blood, for one of her sistersmurdered her own son, and a brother murdered his own sister, AsRichard Edwards, his grandfather, had 5 sons and 1 daughter, by asecond wife, but none of their numerous progeny rose above mediocrity, and their descendants gained no abiding reputation, Jonathan Edwardsmust have owed his remarkable mental qualities largely to hisgrandmother rather than his grandfather. He was evidently a newcreation in Christ Jesus and was cured by grace of all inheritedimmoralities, so that he became the ancestor of one of the mostremarkable 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 thedescendants of Jonathan Edwards, 1394 had been located and thefollowing information in regard to them had been gathered: Collegepresidents, 13; college professors, 65; doctors, 60; clergymen, missionaries, etc. , 100; officers in the army and navy, 75; eminentauthors and writers, 60; lawyers, over 100; judges, 30; holders ofpublic offices, one being vice-president of the United States, 80;United States senators, 3; managers of railroads, banks, insurancecompanies, etc. , 15; college graduates, 295; several were governorsand holders of important state offices. "

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

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

"How much of this expense to the state was due to bad blood we can notsay. If the original Jukeses had become Christians we have no doubtthat the majority of their descendants would have been humble, butorderly, and possibly useful citizens. "

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

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

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

Whenever it can be shown that men become more spiritual when theyaccept the theory, and become more devoted to saving souls as theirzeal for the theory increases, the theory will be worthy of moreserious consideration. We await the evidence. 

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

41. THE HOPE OF IMMORTALITY

The belief in the immortality of the soul has been well nighuniversal, in all ages, and among all nations, and is taught by allreligions. Without it, life and death are insolvable mysteries. Adoctrine so universal, so well established by reason, ought not to beset aside without the most convincing reasons and the most compellingevidence. Either this universal belief is due to revelation, or theabundance of proof appealing to reason, or both. 

A child is born, suffers agonies for weeks and months, and dies. If nofuture, who can solve the mystery? John Milton writes his immortal"Paradise Lost, " and dies. Must his great soul perish? Nero murderedhis brother, his sister, his wife and his mother, and multitudes ofChristians and lastly himself, and was guilty of a multitude of othershocking crimes; while many of the best men and women this world everknew suffered persecution and martyrdom for doing good and blessingothers. Will they all alike meet the same fate--annihilation--at thehands of a just God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

42. SIN

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

When in the "ascent of man" did he become a sinner? A million yearsago? Judging from the pictures of fierce alleged ape-men, it must havebeen a long, long time ago. Did all become sinners then? What becameof the progeny of those who had not secured the attainment of sin? Whyhave not other members of the monkey family become sinners? Why do wenot 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, ifthere had been no Fall, then the entire historical fabric ofChristianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for anatonement upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion andmorality, collapses like a house of cards. "

Evolution claims that man fell up and not down. It denies almost everytruth of religion and the Bible, as well as of experience. "Man isfalling upward, he is his own Savior, he is ever progressing, and hasno need of a Savior. " Contrast this with the sublime statements of theword of God concerning the creation and the fall of man. 

Evolution is charged with explaining all phenomena pertaining toman, --soul and body. It exhausts itself in trying to show that thebody of man may _possibly_ be developed from the brute. It failsmiserably. The problem of accounting for the soul of man with all itsequipment is so much more difficult, that little or no effort is madeto account for it, virtually confessing that the much-exploited theoryof evolution can not possibly be true, when applied to the soul aswell as the body. 

43. REDEMPTION

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

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

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

Paul, a murderer, with his heart full of malignant hate, and his handsstained with blood, greedy to imprison men and women, "breathing outthreatening and slaughter, " looks to Jesus by simple faith, and ischanged into a gentle and loving Christian, rejoicing in suffering andpersecution. He rose to such heights, by the help of Jesus, that heloved his enemies, and was willing to be damned, if that would savetheir souls. What glorious men the apostles became by the transformingpower of Christ! What grand men and women the long line of martyrswere. The men and women who have blest the world most, have beenbelievers in the Bible, and not in evolution. Perhaps a millionmartyrs have died for Christ. Where are the martyrs for evolution?

Augustine was redeemed from a life of vice and dissipation, blessedthe world with his writings, and became one of the greatest leaders ofthought in all ages. John Bunyan was so profane that the most viciouswould cross the street to avoid him. The gospel made him one of theholiest of men. His Pilgrim's Progress has been translated intohundreds of languages, and read by millions. John G. Woolley was amaudlin drunkard, intent on taking his own life, --friends, money, character, and reputation lost, --but was converted and preached, withburning eloquence, the gospel of temperance and prohibition around theworld. 

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

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

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

Holy Ann, of Canada, was so profane and such a terror, that this namewas given her in derision. Touched by Christ, she became so sweet asaint, 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 andfreed from these desperate vices, and made a successful soul-winnerfor Christ. 

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

If evolution be true it should be no hindrance but a great help. Howmany drunkards have been saved by a belief in evolution, and how manyhave been greater soul winners by such belief? How many criminals havebeen saved by acceptance of the theory? Many have been made criminals, unbelievers, infidels, agnostics and atheists by it; how many havebeen made Christians? Can any one be named who has been made a moreearnest and successful soul winner, or a sweeter saint, by espousal ofthe doctrine? If one blank page were set aside for a list of allvictims of sin and vice and crime, who were redeemed by faith inevolution, the space would be wasted. Is there any comfort in it tothe dying, any help to the living? Would any evolutionist preacherread to the dying, the so-called classic passage from Darwin, showingthat every living thing on the tangled bank came from one germ withoutany assistance from God? Is there any choice passage in all theirbooks, fit to be read to the dying, or to a man in trouble, or in needof salvation? Is there anything to put hope in the breast, or inspirea man to a holy life? Anything to lift up a man sodden with sin, andredeem him from the fetters that bind him?

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

44. EV. AIDS INFIDELITY AND ATHEISM

Many evolutionists frankly declare that the purpose of evolution is todestroy belief in God, or his active control of his creation. Prof. H. F. Osborn, of N. Y. , a leading evolutionist, says, "In truth, fromthe period of the earlier stages of Greek thought, _man has beeneager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon theidea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature_. " Otherevolutionists openly announce their antagonism to the Bible andChristianity. Clarence Darrow, in the Tenn. Trial, calledChristianity a "fool religion. "

Darwinism has been declared an attempt to eliminate God and allevidence of design and to substitute the old heathen doctrine ofchance. With this announced purpose in view, we are not surprised tolearn from Prof. J. H. Leuba that one-half the professors teaching itdid not believe in God nor the immortality of the soul; and that thereis a rapid increase in the number of students who have discardedChristianity as they progress in their course, --Freshmen, 15%;Juniors, 30%; Seniors, 40 to 45%. Children of Christian homes, taughtto believe in God and Jesus Christ, are led into infidelity andatheism rapidly, as they progress in their course. It makes oneshudder to think what the future will be, if atheism and infidelityare taught in the guise of science. And the statistics show thatevolution is one of the most fruitful sources of unbelief. What thestudents are taught today, the world will believe tomorrow. How greatthe havoc caused by a comparatively few infidel or atheisticprofessors!

Dr. C. W. Elliott, a Unitarian, announced with apparently great glee, that already the young men and young women do not believe the story ofthe creation of Adam and Eve. The leaders of Bolshevist Russia said toDr. Sherwood Eddy, with brutal frankness, "The Communist party, theonly party allowed in Russia, is 100% atheistic. If a man believes inGod, he can not be a member of the party. " Russia is an example of acountry where atheism is taught in the public schools, and we aremoving all too fast in the same direction. The Red Army shot to death500, 000 men in Russia. The horrors of the French Revolution may beoutdone, if we do not awake to our danger. Russia is cursed with adoctrine offensive alike to the Christian, the Jew, the Mohammedan andeven 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 Americanmethod as more effective. An Associated Press dispatch of Dec. 24, 1924, states that Zinovieff, a Soviet leader, admitted that theCommunists had gone too far in their efforts to establish atheism by_force_, but he adds, "_We shall pursue our attacks on AlmightyGod in due time, and in an appropriate manner. We are confident weshall subdue him in his empyrean. We shall fight him wherever he hideshimself_.... I have been informed that not only young Communists, but Boy Scouts, are mocking people who are religious. I have also beentold that _groups of Boy Scouts have even imprisoned wholecongregations in church while they were worshipping_! Our campaignagainst God and religion must be carried out in a pedagogic way, notby violence or force. " Do we want such a situation in America? We aredrifting that way. 

Evolution has no quarrel with atheism, agnosticism, modernism, or anyother species of infidelity. _Its quarrel is with Christianity andthe Bible_. Why should we wish to harmonize Christianity withevolution, when the theory can not possibly be true? Prof. Newmansays, "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!) ofall creeds are in accord with the evolution idea. "

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

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

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

No doubt many have been made infidels and atheists. How many soulshave 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 nearestthe truth, the number of their converts to Christ should be greatlyincreased. We await the information, which we do not have at hand, tosee if the contention of our friend is correct. 

Mrs. Aimee Semple McPherson preaches daily in the Angelus Temple, LosAngeles, Cal. , which seats 5300 people. Often standing room is at apremium. Many souls are saved (over 14, 000 in 1924), and thousands arehealed in answer to prayer. What a tremendous loss to humanity, if thegospel of Christ had not saved her from the infidelity and atheism ofevolution! She writes as follows of her conversion: "The writer wentto one of the services being held in my home town, by the Irishevangelist, Robert Semple, and entered the meeting _practically aninfidel, having studied Darwinism, atheistic theories until faith inGod's word was shaken_. Never will those moments be forgotten. Onecould feel the power of God, the moment one entered the building. Suchsinging, hands uplifted, faces radiant, such Amens and Hallelujahs, such power and fervor back of every word that was spoken, suchexaltation of the deity of Christ, the necessity and power of theatoning blood, the second Coming of Christ, the power of the HolySpirit to energize and get the believer ready for his coming, grippedand stirred the heart.... Never, never, can the writer forget thathallowed hour, when, kneeling by a Morris chair in the home of afriend, early in the morning, with uplifted arms, she prayed and feltfor 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 areevolutionists, and are reckless in their zeal to destroy the faith ofthe young committed to their care. We select the following 3illustrations 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 hehad sent his son, who had been an orderly Christian boy, to asupposedly Christian college. When the boy returned home, aftergraduation, he informed his father that through instruction received, he had lost his faith, and believed none of those things he had beentaught at home. The father was so shocked and overcome he could makeno reply, but asked his son to kneel and pray with him as they used todo. The son refused, and said he no longer believed in prayer. "

2. "A good Christian father desired to give his young daughter thebest educational advantages. She planned to be a missionary. He senther to a well-known college, considered Christian. This college had aBible chair, but of the destructive, critical type. The young studentabsorbed what she was taught. She lost all reverence for the Bible andrejected it. She entirely lost her faith which she had learned fromher father and mother. She gave up her mission plans, and developedinto a Socialist. When about to graduate, she wrote her fatherfrankly, that she had given up the faith he had taught her, and shewas going to live with a man without marriage, as she did not believein marriage; The father visited her and protested. She smiled andcalled him an old fogy. She only consented to marriage whenthreatened with the civil law. "

3. "Another case reported to us by another father:--His son, attendinga so-called Christian college, reported that one of the professorsdeclared that they and himself were hypocrites, because they attendedchapel every morning where they were told that if they believed anddid such things, they would some day go to another world and play on aharp. But if they did not, they would burn. This he declared was allbosh. Then he called attention to the teachings in the college, that_man in his body developed from a lower animal, but that man had nosoul. "_

Yet some colleges and universities ask Christian people to give largesums, with no guarantee that evolution, infidelity and atheism willnot be taught. Is it any wonder that Christian parents tremble whiletheir sons and daughters run the gauntlet of infidel professors?

45. EV. WARS WITH CHRISTIANITY

Evolution leads to infidelity and atheism, and is therefore a foe toChristianity. It denies the doctrine of special creation, and opposesthe religion of the Christian, the Jew and the Mohammedan. Why shouldnot all these religions unite against the false and unsupported theorythat would make havoc of them all?

If evolution could be shown reconcilable with Christianity it would belifted into respectability, but what would be the gain toChristianity? The Christian religion is reconcilable with all truescience, and hails every true science with joy. The church loves truescience, but hates a lie that poses as the truth. Christianity isreadily reconcilable with the true sciences of Astronomy andChemistry, but we do not try to reconcile it with the correspondingfalse sciences of astrology and alchemy. Why should we be concernedabout such a reconciliation, since all the evidence offered in favorof evolution is not worthy of serious consideration? The facts hotlycontest every guess. There is no conflict between Christianity andscience. But evolution is not science. It is not knowledge. It is nottruth. It is not proved. It is not certain. It is not probable. It isnot possible. How can the serious student escape the conviction thatevolution has not one chance out of a thousand, or even out of amillion, to be a possible theory, and none whatever to be a probableor proven theory? It offers not one convincing argument. The evidenceagainst the theory shows that it has not yet been proven and never canbe. 

The present population of the globe shows the unity of man in the daysof Noah, and that the human race could not have begun 2, 000, 000 yearsago, nor 1, 000, 000, nor 100, 000, nor even 10, 000. And no evidence thatthe evolutionist can bring to bear _now or hereafter_ can everset aside this mathematical demonstration. This one argument issufficient to shatter evolution, if there were no more. But the wholefifty arguments in this book rush to the support of this one. They allharmonize with the Bible statements, but not one of them with thefalse and baneful theory of evolution. And no erroneous guess thatthey can make will escape mathematical detection. Why should wegratify the clamor of evolutionists, and seek to reconcileChristianity with a theory so manifestly false? To be worthy ofacceptance, it must satisfactorily answer every one of the fiftyarguments in this book and many more. Can it do so?

Evolution carried to a logical conclusion would destroy every thingprecious to the heart of a Christian. It denies the real inspirationof the Bible. It makes Moses a liar. It denies the story of creation, and substitutes an impossible guess. It denies miracles, theprovidence of God, the creation of man and beast, and God's governmentand control of the world. It laughs at the Virgin Birth and makesChrist a descendant of the brute on both sides. It denies his deity, his miracles, his resurrection from the dead. It joins hands withagnosticism, modernism, and other forms of infidelity and atheism andgives them the strongest support they have ever had. All these hailevolution's advent with exceeding great joy. It has the closestaffinity with the wildest and worst theories ever proposed. 

Its writers and proponents turn infidel and atheist. Its teachers andadvocates lose their belief in God and the immortality of thesoul. The young men and women who are taught, abandon the faith oftheir fathers and join the forces of unbelief. To be sure, some aresaved by inconsistency, and still maintain their faith, but the havocis great. It would strip Christ of his Deity, reduce him to thedimensions of a man, and make his religion powerless to save. The menwho tore the seamless coat from the dying Christ did a praiseworthyact, in comparison to those who would strip him of his deity andglory, for these are the garments of God!

The ruffians at the foot of the cross gambled for a mere humangarment, but there are evolutionists who would "trample under foot theblood of the Son of God, and count it an unholy thing. " Those whowould rob the world's redeemer of his power and divinity, whilespeaking patronizingly in praise of his human traits, do but insulthim with the vilest slander, which makes the derision of Calvary seemlike praise. 

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

Christianity withstood ten fiery persecutions, lasting 300 years, atthe hands of the Roman Empire, the mistress of the world. The churchwas purified, and grew and multiplied. Numerous heresies arose but allyielded 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 ownname, and lost. But the most dangerous attack ever made is on, byevolution claiming the name of science and modernism claiming the nameof religion. This f. A. D. Is truly for a day. God will win. Truthwill live and error will die. But too many precious souls will be lostunless the world awakes to see its danger soon. 

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

Evolution wars with the religion of the Jews also. It attacks the OldTestament, dear alike to Christian and Jew. The Jews were the chosenpeople of God, and have played a large part in the history of theworld. We gladly clasp hands with them against the common foe. Davidspeaks for Jews and Christians in the 8th Psalm. In contrast toevolution, which degrades man to the level of the brute, he declaresthat man is but a little lower than God, (Heb. Elohim). The revisershad the courage so to translate it. David under inspiration wrotebetter than he knew, and in absolute harmony with modern science:

"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon andthe 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 hastmade him but little lower than God, and crownest him with glory andhonor. 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, andthe beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. " All animalsconfess the dominion of man since the strongest and fiercest flee fromhis face. Who would prefer the "string of stuff" that would place manbelow the brute, to the lofty description of the Hebrew Psalmistplacing him a little lower than God?

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

"All the modernists are evolutionists and their hypothesis of creationgives man a brute ancestry and makes him the apex of a gradualdevelopment extending over millions of years. This hypothesis containsno place for, and has no need of, a plan of salvation. It is only astep from this philosophy to the philosophy of the atheist whoconsiders man 'a bundle of tendencies inherited from the loweranimals, ' and regards sin as nothing more serious than a disease thatshould be treated rather than punished. One of the gravest objectionsto the doctrine of the modernists is that it ignores sin in the sensein which the Bible describes sin. Modernists ignore the cause of sin, the effects of sin, and the remedy for sin. They worship the intellectand overlook the heart, 'out of which are the issues of life. ' Noevangelical church has ever endorsed a single doctrine of themodernists. 

"Evolution is the basis of modernism. Carried to its logicalconclusion, it annihilates revealed religion. It made an avowedagnostic of Darwin (see in his 'Life and Letters' a letter written onthis subject just before his death); it has made agnostics of millionsand atheists of hundreds of thousands, yet Christian taxpayers, notawake to its benumbing influence, allow Darwinism to be injected intothe minds of immature students, many of whom return from college withtheir spiritual enthusiasm chilled if not destroyed. 

"When we protest against the teaching of this tommy-rot by instructorspaid by taxation, they accuse us of stifling conscience andinterfering with free speech. Not at all; let the atheist think whathe pleases and say what he thinks to those who are willing to listento him, but he cannot rightly demand pay from the taxpayers forteaching their children what they do not want taught. The hand thatwrites the pay check rules the school. As long as Christians mustbuild Christian colleges in which to teach Christianity, atheistsshould be required to build their own colleges if they desire to teachatheism. 

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

"How can intelligent men and women underestimate the Christ? He is nolonger a wandering Jew with a few followers; He is the great fact ofhistory and the growing figure of all time--there is no other growingfigure in all the world today. Men--the greatest of them--rise andreign and pass away; only CHRIST reigns and remains. They shall nottake away our Lord. The Christian Church will not permit the degradingof its founder; it will defend at all times, everywhere and in everyway, the historical Christ. It believes that 'there is none other nameunder heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. ' No diminutiveMessiah can meet the religious need of the world today and throughoutthe centuries. Christ for all and forever, is the slogan of thechurch. There has been apostasy in every age; attacks uponChristianity have been disguised under cloaks of many kinds, but ithas withstood them all--'The hammers are shattered but the anvilremains. ' The church will not yield now; it will continue its defenseof the Bible, the Bible's God and the Bible's Christ until 'every kneeshall bow and every tongue confess. '

"While it resists the attacks upon the integrity of God's Word and thedivinity of the Saviour, it will pray that those who are now makingthe 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 tobe with His people 'always, even unto the end of the world, ' TheApostles' Creed which has expressed the faith of the Christian Churchfor so many centuries shall not be emasculated by modernism. 

 "'Faith of our fathers! living stillIn 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'!"

46. CAMOUFLAGE OF TERMS

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

EVOLUTION in the sense of growth and development, is true of apart of animal and plant life, and in this sense is undisputed. Somespeak of the growth of a child and of all progress, as evolution. Inthe sense at issue, it means the development of all the 3, 000, 000species of animals and plants, from one or a few primordial germs, without design or intelligence, or the aid of a Creator. Adistinguished surgeon declares that evolution from the monkey is merenon-sense but that life is a constant evolution, --two senses in thesame sentence. Such confusion of meaning brings science intodisrepute. The meaning is shifted to suit. 

SCIENCE means knowledge. We are glibly told that scienceteaches the evolution of man when it teaches nothing of the kind. Amere theory is not science until proven. A man does not become ascientist by advocating an unproven theory, but by making some notablecontribution to knowledge. These self-appointed scientists recklesslydeclare that the "consensus" of science favors evolution. We opposeevolution not because it _is_ science, but because it is_not_ science. There is no conflict between Christianity and realscience, but a fight to the death with "science falsely so called. "

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

LAW is sometimes spoken of as if it had intelligence andpower. Sometimes as a subordinate deity, or agent of God, or anindefinite principle. Darwin says:--"Plants and animals have all beenproduced by laws (?) acting around us. " That is impossible, since"laws" can produce nothing. He evidently gives to laws the credit thatbelongs 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 andculture and the last word in science, but doubts or denies many of theessential doctrines of the Christian religion. It is infidelity pureand simple and of the most dangerous kind, camouflaged under thisattractive name. Who can deny the statement that the only thing modernabout modernism is its hypocrisy? It is ancient infidelity pretendingto be a Christian view. Bearing the Christian flag, it attacksChristianity. Modernists are evidently ashamed of a name which fitlydescribes their views, and seek another. Infidels have tried to winunder their own name. They have failed. Will they succeed under thecamouflaged name of modernism? Camouflaged under an attractive name, modernists doubt or deny the real inspiration of the Bible, the Virginbirth of Jesus, his deity, his miracles, his bodily resurrection, theresurrection of the dead, and his personal second coming to judge thequick and the dead. Some modernists reject a part of these greattruths, and some reject all. 

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

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

It has been truly said, "If the Bible is not really inspired, it isthe 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, ifevolution be accepted, -whether modernists, liberals, rationalists, orsimple unbelievers on their way to the bottomless pit. If evolutionwins, Christianity loses and the church fails. 

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

47. WHAT ARE WE TO BELIEVE?

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 bychance; or that there is nothing but matter, --no God, no spirit, nomind, no soul. 

Some would have us believe that God created nebulous matter, and thenceased to control the universe; that life developed spontaneously;that species developed by chance, or natural selection, or by apowerless "law, " from one primordial germ. Others say that all thecountless exhibitions of design by a matchless Intelligence, are to beexplained by a causo-mechanical theory, which means the theory ofblind unintelligent chance, without purpose or design or interferenceof 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 thismicroscopic beginning. We are asked to believe that some plants becameanimals, or some animals became plants, or that all plants and animalscame from the one germ they allowed God to create. They say that allspecies developed by growth, but do not explain why we still have theone-celled amoeba, the microscopic bacilli of plant life, and themicroscopic species of animal life. Many geologic species are largestat the beginning; many ancient animals were much larger than theirsuccessors; and the reptilian age was noted for animals of enormoussize. Yet they want us to believe that growth is universal. 

They ask us to believe, without proof, that some marine animalsevoluted into amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, somereptiles developed hair and became mammals, and some reptilesdeveloped feathers and wings and became birds; some mammals becamemonkeys, and some monkeys became men. For evidence of this, there isnot a single connecting link to show the transformation. Geologyfurnishes no fossils of the millions and billions of connecting linksthat must have existed. For the scheme would require not onlymillions of links between man and the monkey, but also millionsbetween each of the 8 great changes from matter to man. Yet we areasked to accept these fantastic and impossible speculations as"science, " though it lead to infidelity and atheism and bolshevism andanarchy and chaos, wreck religion, make havoc of the church, and sendcountless souls to the lost world. What wonder that the soul recoilswith horror from such an atheistic theory. 

48. WHAT CAN WE DO?

Evolution, leading to infidelity and atheism, is taught in manyuniversities, colleges and high schools, and even in the lower gradesof the public schools. It is taught also in some theologicalseminaries. It is proclaimed in some pulpits. Some of its devotees, who have slipped into places of power and influence, urge it with azeal worthy of a better cause. The public libraries are crammed withbooks teaching it, with few, if any, opposed. Strange to say, it isadvocated by some religious newspapers, along with modernism and othervarieties of infidelity. Some secular newspapers seem eager topublish, on the front page, attacks on orthodoxy, and articlesfavoring the wildest claims of evolution. They call evolution science!What are we going to do about it? Shall we supinely submit, or do allin 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 orother forms of infidelity and atheism. We can aid those only that aresafe. Much money that was given by devout Christians to colleges andseminaries, has been prostituted to teach what the donors hated, andto do great harm. The faculty and trustees can do much to eliminatefalse teaching, if they will. Use all possible pressure to bring thisabout. 

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

We quote from Mauro's "Evolution at the Bar, " p. 71: "A parent writingto a religious periodical, tells of a text book brought home by hisseven-year-old boy, the title of which was, 'Home Geography forPrimary Grades. ' Discussing the subject of birds, this text book forprimary grades says: 'Ever so long ago, their grandfathers were notbirds at all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings norfeathers. These grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail, and jaws with teeth. After a time feathers grew on their bodies, andtheir front legs were changed for flying. These were strange lookingcreatures. There are none living like them now. '" Would any one whowould teach a little child, the extremely improbable story thatreptiles became birds, hesitate to teach that monkeys became men andthat the story of creation was false?

Much can be done by the church authorities in refusing to license orordain men who believe in any species of infidelity, or who haveattended heretical seminaries. They should give their consent forcandidates to attend only colleges, universities or seminaries thatcan be trusted. Congregations should know, before they call a pastor, that he is orthodox. Ministers are to preach the Gospel notinfidelity. 

Taboo all heretical religious papers; support those that defend thetruth. Let infidels maintain infidel papers and build infidelcolleges. Not one dollar to propagate infidelity! Make your one shortconsecrated life count for truth and righteousness. Many Christiansare guilty of the great sin of indifference. In this greatest of allcontests in which the Church was ever engaged, no one should be aslacker. 

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

The author and publisher of this book will give 50% commission forselling it, and will mail two copies for $1. 00 to all who will becomeagents. If you can't be an agent, you will do great good by securinganother. A copy should be in the hands of every student, so he candiscuss evolution with his teacher; and in the hands of every teacher, lawyer, doctor, minister, lawmaker or other professional man, of everyparent whose children are liable to be taught the dangerousdoctrine. It will be useful in removing error and in promoting thetruth. Agents should canvass every school, college, university, seminary; every convention, conference; every religious andeducational gathering. A copy should be in every library. 

Every dollar of profit from the sale of this book will be given toMissions, to be loaned perpetually to help build churches, and topreach the Gospel in the secular newspapers of the world, and todistribute this book free. Every $1000 so loaned to churches at 5%compound interest, in 300 years, will, together with the accruedinterest, aid in building 8, 229, 024 churches, by a loan of $1000 eachfor 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, thenthe unpaid or "stolen" tenth (Mai. 3:8), then to consecrate thenine-tenths, and, lastly, to give all above an economical living. Manyanother consecrated Christian, on fire for God and burning with furyagainst all forms of infidelity, can do incalculable good by sendingthis book free to as many libraries, students, teachers, ministers, lawyers and doctors as possible. For this purpose, the publisher willmail the book to large numbers, for 20c each; your $1 sends a $1 bookto 5. For $2000, for example, a copy will be mailed to the 10, 000ministers of the Presbyterian church, U. S. A. ; for $4, 000, to the20, 000 pastors of the Methodist Episcopal church; for $1000, a copy to5000 public libraries in the United States and elsewhere; or to 5000students, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, lawmakers, etc. Smaller sums in proportion. What great good a heroic giver, in everyland, could do with $1000 or $10, 000 or $100, 000! With 1, 000, 000copies, we would wake the world!

A Canadian farmer gives $1000 to mail one to 5000 Canadian ministersand libraries. Who will give $2, 000 to send one to 10, 000 lawmakers inU. S. ?

--Ministers, students, teachers, parents, yes, ALL are urged to beagents, employ sub-agents, earn wages, and do good. To agents, booksellers, libraries, churches, S. S. 's, organizations and societiesneeding funds, 2 to 25 mailed to any land, for 50c each cash; 25 ormore, 40c--60% profit; 100 or more, 30c--70% profit! Books are thebest outfit, --try 25 (show p. 76). To periodicals (for sale orpremium), 30c. Special terms to general or national agents, speakers, publishers, colleges, seminaries, etc. Editors are hereby givenpermission FREE to use any selections. Add to each: From 'EVOLUTIONDISPROVED' (cloth $1) by per. The author and pub. , Rev. W. A. Williams, Camden, N. J. _Mail marked selections and reviews_. 

The fight is on. Only about 2% of the members of evangelical churches, it is said, are modernists and evolutionists. Let the rest asserttheir rights and say: "Common honesty requires you to restore toorthodoxy the institutions you have purloined. We demand them back. Henceforth you shall not steal our colleges, seminaries and publicschools, and make our children infidels and atheists. You shall not, with our consent, capture our pulpits, and strip the world's Redeemerof his power and glory. "

49. PROBLEMS FOR REVIEW

The following problems, when solved by the reader, will deepen theconviction that evolution is impossible. The erroneous guesses byevolutionists may be checked up and disproved by mathematicalproblems. No stronger proof could well be devised. For patternsolutions, refer to the preceding text. A reward will be given to thefirst person who points out a material error. Test, verify or correctthe following solutions:--

1. If the first human pair lived 2, 000, 000 years ago, as theevolutionists claim, and the population has doubled itself in every1612. 51 years (one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase), what wouldbe the present population of the globe? Ans. 18, 932, 139, 737, 991followed by 360 figures; or 18, 932, 139, 737, 991 decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18, 932, 139, 737, 991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion. 

2. If the first human pair lived 100, 000 years ago (a period much lessthan evolution required), what Would be the present population at thesame low rate of increase? Ans. 4, 660, 210, 253, 138, 204, 000; or2, 527, 570, 733 times as many as are living now. 

3. At the above rate of increase, how many human beings would havesurvived in the 5177 years since Noah? Ans. 9. How many Jews, in the3850 years since Jacob's marriage? Ans. 5. 

4. If the human race doubled its numbers every 168. 3 years since Noahbecame a father (5177 years) what would be the population of theglobe? Ans. 1, 804, 187, 000, --just what it is. 

5. If the Jews doubled their numbers every 161. 251 years since Jacob'smarriage (3850 years ago), how many Jews would there have been in1922? Ans. 15, 393, 815, just the number reported. 

6. What guess of man's age can stand the test of mathematics? Ans. Nota single guess ever made assigning a great age to man, --nothinggreater than the age indicated by the Scriptures; 2, 000, 000, or1, 000, 000, or 100, 000 years are clearly out of the question. 

7. If life began 60, 000, 000 years ago, and the human race 2, 000, 000years ago, how much sub-normal should have been the brain and mind ofman at that time? Ans. 1/30 or 3-1/3%; or 96-2/3% normal; or 1450c. C. , counting 1500 c. C. Normal, --more nearly normal than many nationsnow. 

8. How much if life began 500, 000, 000 years ago? Ans. . 4%; or 99. 6%normal; or 1494 c. C. , far more c. C. Than a large part of mankind canclaim. 

9. If man had, in 58, 000, 000 years, developed only the same skullcapacity as the other members of the simian family (not over 600c. C. ), how much must he have gained in 2, 000, 000 years? Ans. 900 c. C. , which is a development 43. 5 times as rapid in 2, 000, 000 years as inthe 58, 000, 000 years preceding. How could that be?

10. If life began 500, 000, 000 years ago, how would the rapidity ofskull and brain development in 2, 000, 000 years compare with that ofthe 498, 000, 000 years preceding? Ans. 373. 5 times as great. 

11. If the skull of the pithecanthropus was two-thirds normal, or 1000c. C. , how many years ago must it have lived, in case life began60, 000, 000 years ago? Ans. 20, 000, 000; in case life began 500, 000, 000years ago? Ans. 166, 666, 666. 

12. If the Piltdown "man" had a normal skull capacity of 1070 c. C. , asclaimed, how long ago did he live, if life began 60, 000, 000 years ago?Ans. 17, 200, 000 years. If 500, 000, 000 years ago? Ans. 143, 333, 333years. 

13. If the Neanderthal man had a capacity of 1408 c. C. (assigned byDr. Osborn), how many years ago must he have lived if 60, 000, 000 yearshave passed since life began? Ans. 3, 680, 000; if 500, 000, 000 years?Ans. 30, 666, 666. If 1800 c. C. Be taken as normal instead of 1500c. C. As some insist, these great periods since these "ape-men" existedmust be enormously increased, in some cases 50%. 

14. If, on the other hand, the pithecanthropus really lived 750, 000years ago, what, with normal development, should have been its skullcapacity, if life began 60, 000, 000 ago? Ans. 98. 75%; or 1481 c. C. Iflife began 500, 000, 000 years ago? Ans. 99. 85%; or 1497. 77 c. C. Ineither case, practically normal. 

15. If the Piltdown "man" lived 150, 000 years ago, as claimed, whatshould have been his brain capacity, if life has lasted 60, 000, 000years? Ans. 99. 75%; or 1496. 25 c. C. If 500, 000, 000 years? Ans. 99. 97%;or 1499. 55 c. C. Very nearly normal. 

The above problems prove either that these alleged links could nothave lived in the periods assigned them, or else they must have had abrain capacity almost normal, and far greater than assigned to them. 

16. The habitable countries of the world-total 50, 670, 837 sq. Mi. Ifwe estimate that the garden of Eden occupied 10, 000 sq. Mi. Or6, 400, 000 acres, there would be 5067 such areas in the world. Whatchance would Moses have, not knowing, to guess the correct location?Ans. 1 chance out of 5067, --virtually none at all. 

17. If Moses, not knowing the order of creation, enumerates 11 greatevents in their correct scientific order, what chance had he to guessthe correct order? Ans. I chance out of 39, 916, 800. If 15 greatevents, as some biblical scholars point out? Ans. I chance out of1, 307, 674, 368, 000. (Solve by Permutation. )

18. If there are now 1, 500, 000 species of animals, coming from asingle primordial germ or cell which existed 60, 000, 000 years ago, howmany species of animals should have arisen or matured in the last 6000years? Ans. 3000; or one every two years. If life has existed500, 000, 000 years, 360 new animal species were due in the last 6000years. Evolutionists declare they do not know that a single newspecies has arisen in the last 6000 years! Even Darwin said, "Not onechange of species into another is on record. "

19. If the skeletons of 200, 000 prehistoric horses were found in asingle locality, Lyons, France, how many skeletons of prehistoric manshould we expect? Ans. Many millions. How many are there? Not asingle or undisputed skeleton of an ape-man!

20. If each of the two eyes and ears as well as the nose and the mouthoccupy, on an average, one-thousandth part of the surface of the body, what, if we exclude God's design, is the mathematical probability thatthey would appear where they are? Ans. . OO1 x . OO1 x . 001 x . 001 x. 001 x . 001; =. 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 001; or 1 chance in a billionbillion! (Solved by Compound Probability. )

21. Evolutionists claim at least 8 great transmutations from matter toman: matter, plant-life, invertebrates, vertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and man. If we make the extremelygenerous estimate of 60% to represent the probability of eachtransmutation, what is the compound probability that all would takeplace? Ans. 1 chance in 60, which means an extreme improbability. 

22. If there is 1 chance in 10 that each transmutation has takenplace, which is far more than the evidence warrants, what fractionrepresents the probability that all these great changes have occurred?Ans. . 1 raised to the eighth power, or . 00000001; or 1 chance in100, 000, 000. 

23. If the probability of a change of one member of one species intoanother species be expressed by . 1 (an over-estimate), what fractionmarks the probability of a million members making the same change?Ans. . 1 raised to the millionth power; or 1 preceded by 999, 999decimal ciphers; or a common fraction with 1 as a numerator and amillion figures as a denominator; or 1 chance out of a numberexpressed by 1, 000, 000 figures, which would fill 3 volumes like thisbook. Such changes were absolutely impossible, but necessary forevolution. 

24. If the scattered remains of the pithecanthropus were found in thesand only 40 ft. Below the surface, and the rate of accumulation wereno greater than the slow accretions that buried the mountain city ofJerusalem 20 feet deep in 1900 years, what would be the extreme age ofthese remains? Ans. 3800 years, instead of 750, 000 years. 

25. If the Heidelberg jaw was found in sand 69 ft. Deep, what would beits maximum age, estimated in the same way? Ans. 6555 years instead of375, 000. Who believes that sand in a river valley would accumulate nomore rapidly than dust on the mountains? Or that it took 750, 000 oreven 375, 000 years to cover with sand these precious remains such ashallow depth? A few centuries at most would account for such a depth. Can there be any doubt that these were abnormal bones of historic manand brute?

26. Did any other false theory that ever posed as science, have lessto support its claims than evolution?

27. Believing that a Christian should give to the Lord all above hisnecessities, none of the profits on this book will be retained by thepublisher, but all will be donated to missions, to be perpetuallyloaned to churches, and to preach the gospel through the secularnewspapers, of the world, and to aid in the free distribution of thisbook as explained on pages 116 and 117. How many churches will every$1000 together with the compound interest thereon, help to build in300 years, if the average loan to each church is $1000 for 5 years at5%? Ans. 8, 229, 024; and the new principal will then be $2, 273, 528, 000. 

28. How could $1000 be given to do more good than for these threepurposes?

29. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole worldand lose his own soul?"

30. What shall it profit a man, if he wins great fame as a scientist, persuades a great multitude to accept evolution, infidelity andatheism, and leads a great company to the lost world, by destroyingtheir faith in God and in Jesus Christ?

50. THE SUPREMACY OF JESUS

From far-off Australia comes this sermon by Rev. R. Ditterich. Whatmore fitting climax in honor of Christ, whose worshipers belt theglobe? "Christ is All, " a pean of praise, which has been sung bothsides the sea, and published in three Hymnals and over sixty songbooks, will close this volume, dedicated to the glory of God. 

_Text: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the livingGod. "--Matt. 16. 16. _

Jesus asked a great question, and Peter made a great reply. Noprophet, no priest, no king, no patriarch of Israel had ever beengreeted in such fashion. Of nobody else in the world are these wordsspoken today. How pure must have been the life, how majestic thepersonality, how wise the utterances, how divine the deeds, thatcompelled this thrilling answer from the apostle's lips. Surelysomething really wonderful beyond all previous Hebrew experience wasnecessary before Jews could bring themselves to acknowledge any man, however exalted, as divine. The miracle of winning such a confessionis testimony to the sovereign greatness of Jesus. 

We, too, have to answer the same question, and there are facts whichlead us to the same great confession of faith. 

FIVE TREMENDOUS FACTS

1. Jesus, a peasant, is hailed today as King by people speaking 750languages and dialects, in all climes, and of all classes. People ofevery color raise to Him the song of praise and crown Him "Lord ofall. " There is nothing like this in all history. No other has everapproached this degree of sovereignty. His kingdom pervades theworld. It is a fact that challenges thought. No world conqueror hasever had such an empire. Beside this the royalty of men likeAlexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon, and more modern aspirants isshadowy and ghostlike. His is an abiding and a spiritual dominion. 

2. Though an unlettered peasant, Jesus has become the world's greatestteacher. For all our best knowledge of God, for the revelation ofdivine Fatherly love, for our highest ideals of virtue, for man's mostglorious hope, people on all sides look to Him. Not only men of thehighest rank, but men of the richest culture sit at His feet. Thepurest souls sit at His feet. His golden rule will never besupplanted. His name has become the synonym for all that is true andgracious. To be Christ-like must ever remain man's highest ideal. 

3. He was a Jew, and yet He founded the brotherhood of man. In His dayJews had no dealings with Samaritans. But Jesus had. Jews were fencedoff from all other nations in the most exclusive way. But His heartwas all-inclusive, and He broke down all walls that separated classfrom class as well as nation from nation. His thought wasuniversal. His spirit was international. He founded a kingdom based, as Napoleon said, not on force but on love, and love is universal. Itleaps over mountains, it spans oceans. It speaks in all tongues. Thetrue League of Nations and the real disarmament are part of His planfor the world. He was son of Israel only incidentally. Essentially Hewas Son of Man--the true brother of all mankind. 

4. His life was short, but it changed the world. No one ever did somuch in so short a time. At the most his years numbered thirty-threeyears, and of these only a little less than three were devoted topublic ministry, and these were spent in a conquered province of theRoman Empire. He was killed by aliens at the request of His owncountrymen. And yet time is reckoned from His birth. The very termsB. C. And A. D. Have great significance. He divides not only time, butalso space. The nations are Christian and non-Christian, which isabout equal to saying, civilized and barbarous. One has only to thinkof the ideals and practices of pagan people before they received theinfluences of Christianity to see the difference He makeseverywhere. No tribe on earth was ever lifted from savagery by theinfluence of Socrates, no crime-soaked soul was ever saved by his nameand yet Socrates was the wisest and noblest of the Greeks. He livedfor seventy years and for forty years taught the young men in the mostcultured age and among the most intellectual people in the world. ButJesus has lifted cannibals and washed the souls of men who weresteeped in blackest vice. The rationalist Lecky said that the simplerecord of His three brief years of active life had done more toregenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions ofphilosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists. 

5. He was crucified, and made of the cross a throne from which to rulethe hearts of men. The cross was a gallows far more hideous and cruelthan the hangman's gallows. It was the symbol of crime, of shame, ofdegradation. He transformed it. It is today the symbol of love, ofpurity, of virtue. His dream came true. Once only did a man dream thatby dying upon a cross would He teach men to say that God is love, thatlove is universal, that there is hope for sinners, and that theworship of God must be spiritual. This is the miracle of the ages. The Crucified has become the King. 

Here then are five tremendous facts. They are unique. If only onewere true it would make Him remarkable, but they are all true. 

THE MEANING OF THE FACTS

What shall we say of this Man? He accepted Peter's tribute. He allowedJews to take up stones to stone Him for claiming to be Son of God. Hewas conscious of being divine. He forgave sins, which is God'sprerogative. He promised rest to the weary soul, which the OldTestament set forth as God's own gift. He said that He came to givelife eternal, although God is the giver of life. He said that nonecould know the Father except through Him. He spoke to God of theglory which they shared together before the world was. Just inproportion as men have acknowledged His claims in their hearts havethey found peace with God and conquest over sin and the fear ofworldly evil. As we consider all these things we are led to repeatPeter's confession, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God, "for God the Father's face shines upon us through Him and heaven isopened to us as we look upon Him. In the heart of this the purest ofmen was the clear, constant consciousness that He was divine. Healways spoke and acted consistently with this consciousness. Uniquein character, He made claims that would have stamped any other man asan impostor. Humility and majesty dwell together in Him. He could say, "I am meek and lowly in heart, " and also "I and my Father are one. " Hewould call men His "brethren" and yet accept from them the words, "MyLord and my God. " This wonderful character came of a race that hadfor ages looked for the coming of a Messiah, and whose propheticliterature was burdened with this hope. After his death his discipleswho were heartbroken and cowed became inspired with a heroism thatcheerfully faced martyrdom. All these facts are shining lights thatpoint to the truth which Peter confessed. That truth is enshrined inthe triumphant words of the Te Deum, "Thou are the King of glory, OChrist. Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father. "

And the Christ of history, the exalted Son of God, is a livingPresence with us today. Not remote but ever near, He walks by our sidein all life's experiences. Not only enthroned in heavenly glory

"But warm, sweet, tender, even yet A present help is He, And faith has still its Olivet And love its Galilee. "

Such is our wonderful Saviour, a Friend with human heart of sympathywho has trod our pathway and is touched with the feeling of ourinfirmities; a Shepherd who gave His life for the sheep in anall-atoning sacrifice; an Advocate who represents us withall-prevailing power before the throne of the Judge Eternal; aChampion who Can break the power of canceled sin and set the prisonerfree; a Victor who can smite death's threatening wave before us; aLord in whom we see the beauty and glory of the face of God. We arecalled upon to confess Him with lip and life. To us to live isChrist. Knowing Him we have eternal life. We have all the soul needsin Jesus. There is no substitute for Him. None can share His thronein our hearts. The Kingdom is His who is the Christ--the anointedKing. Our joy is in Him, where all fullness dwells. We can say withCharles Wesley, "Thou, O Christ, art all I want, " and our daily lifeshould be one of close, constant communion with Christ. 

No. 21. CHRIST IS ALL. 

"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious. "--Pet. 11:7. 

W. A. WILLIAMS, by per. 

_Effectiva as a Soprano Solo, Ad lib_. 

[Illustration: Musical notation]

1. I entered once a home of care, For age and penury were there, Yet peace and joy withal;I asked the lonely mother whenceHer helpless widowhood's defence. She told me, "Christ was all. "Christ is all, all in all, She told me "Christ was all". 

2. I stood beside a dying bed, Where lay a child with aching head, Waiting for Jesus' call, I marked his smile, 'twas sweet as May, And as his spirit passed away, He whispered, "Christ is all. "Christ is all, all in all, He whispered "Christ is all. "

3. I saw the martyr at the at the stake, The flames could not his courage shake, Nor death his soul appall, I asked him whence his strength was giv'n, He looked triumphantly to Heav'n, And answered "Christ is all. "Christ is all, all in all, He answered, "Christ is all. "

4. I saw the gospel herald go, To Afric's sand and Greenland's snow, To save from Satan's thrall:No home nor life he counted dear, Midst wants and perils owned no fear. He felt that "Christ is all. "Christ is all, all in all, He felt that "Christ is all. "

5. I dreamed that hoary time had fled;The earth and sea gave up their dead, A fire dissolved this ball;I saw the church's ransom'd throng, I heard the burden of their song. 'twas "Christ is all in all. "Christ is all, all in all, 'Twas Christ is all in all. 

6. Then come to Christ, oh! come today. The Father, Son, and Spirit say;The Bride repeats the call;For he will cleanse your guilty stains, His love will sooth your weary pains, For "Christ is all in all. "Christ is all, all in all, For "Christ is all in all. "

INDEX

Introduction

Theories of Evolution

PART ONE: Evolution of the Human Body

The Unity of the Human Race

 1. The Population of the World 2. The Unity of Languages 3. Religions 4. Place of the Origin of Man 5. Civilizations 6. The Mendelian Inheritance Law 7. Biometry 8. No New Species Now 9. Mathematical Probability10. The Age of the Earth11. Geology and History12. Geographical Distribution13. God Not Absent Nor Inactive14. Chance or Design?15. Evolution Atheistic16. Brute Descent Impossible17. Eight Impassable Gulfs18. Ancestral Apes and Monkeys19. A Staggering Speculation20. Sex21. Man Hairless and Tailless22. Hybrids23. The Instinct of Animals24. Special Creation: Gen. I25. Analogy; Mathematics, Laws26. Desperate Arguements27. Twenty Objections Admitted28. Scientists Condemn Evolution

PART TWO: Evidence Answered

29. Paleontology30. Confessed Collapse of Proof31. Pictures in Caverns32. Vestigial Organs33. Serology, or Blood Tests34. Embryology

PART THREE: The Soul

35. The Origin of the Soul36. Personality37. Intellect, Emotions and Will38. Abstract Reason39. Conscience40. Spirituality4l. The Hope of Immortality42. Sin43. Redemption44. Evolution Aids Infidelity and Atheism45. Evolution Wars With Christianity46. Camouflage of Terms47. What Are We to Believe?48. What Can We Do?49. Problems for Review50. The Supremacy of Jesus

Song: Christ Is All