Chapter IV: Part ONE: The Evolution of the Human Body Mathematically Disproved (3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. BRUTE DESCENT IMPOSSIBLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. EIGHT IMPASSABLE GULFS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. ANCESTRAL APES AND MONKEYS

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

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

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

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

19. A STAGGERING SPECULATION

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

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

20. SEX

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

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

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

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

21. MAN HAIRLESS AND TAILLESS

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

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

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

22. HYBRIDS

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

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

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

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

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

23. THE INSTINCT OF ANIMALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. SPECIAL CREATION: GEN. I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CREATION--GENERAL STATEMENT

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," including the 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 and emptiness." And, on account of the thick vapors in the hot atmosphere, "darkness was upon the face of the deep," and doubtless had been for ages.

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

The First Day's Work. Light Appears.

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

Second Day's Work. A Clearing Expanse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. ANALOGY; MATHEMATICS, LAWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26. DESPERATE ARGUMENTS

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

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

27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED

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

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

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