{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_8508/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_8508","id":"gutenberg_8508","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8508","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution"],"text":"E-text prepared by Dave Maddock\n\n\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF MAN SCIENTIFICALLY DISPROVED\n\nIN 50 ARGUMENTS\n\nBy\n\nREV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, D.D.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDesigned (1) As an up-to-date text book, and a companion to all other\n    text books on evolution; and\n\n(2) As an antidote to books in libraries teaching evolution,\n    infidelity and atheism; and\n\n(3) As an aid to all students, parents, teachers, ministers, lawyers,\n    doctors, and all other lovers of the truth.\n\n\n\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF MAN MATHEMATICALLY DISPROVED\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nLet it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of\nscience is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the\nmaddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of\nscience. Moreover, we should examine any new hypothesis with open\nminds, to see if it has in it anything truthful, helpful or\nadvantageous.  It should neither be accepted nor rejected simply\nbecause it is new. But if a theory is evidently or probably untrue, or\npernicious, or at all harmful, it is to be rejected and condemned.\n\nSome facts and objections are herein submitted to the serious seeker\nafter truth, in the hope that a theory so out of harmony with the\nfacts, and so destructive to the faith and the cherished hopes of man,\nmay be completely discarded.  As Evolution can not stand the acid test\nof mathematics, it will be repudiated by all.\n\nWe shall discuss the theory upon its merits, from a scientific\nstandpoint, and will also demand an explanation of all facts\nconcerned, as we have a right to do, even where they are associated\nwith the theological and the spiritual as well as the material. We do\nnot oppose true science but \"science falsely so called.\" We do not ban\nresearch, but will not allow the wild vagaries of the imagination to\npass as truth.\n\nWe shall not declare arbitrarily that evolution is untrue; neither\nwill we allow scientists to decide what we shall believe. But we shall\nappeal to the facts, and evolution must stand or fall by the\nevidence. \"Evolution is not to be accepted until proved.\" It is not\nyet proved and never will be.\n\n\nMATHEMATICS THE ACID TEST.\n\nEvery theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or\ndisproved by this acid test. Figures will not lie, and mathematics\nwill not lie even at the demand of liars. Their testimony is as clear\nas the mind of God.  Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous\ncalculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory is\nproved true, and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematical\ncalculations. The calculations, leading to the discovery of Neptune,\nwent far to establish the Copernican theory as well as the law of\ngravitation, and to disprove the Ptolemaic theory. The evolution\ntheory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved by\nmathematics.  The proof is overwhelming and decisive.  Thus God makes\nthe noble science of mathematics bear testimony in favor of the true\ntheories and against the false theories. We shall endeavor to marshal\nsome of the mathematical proofs against the false and pernicious\ntheory of evolution. True theories, such as the gravitation and\nCopernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch of\nmathematics harmonizes with every other. If evolution were true, it\nwould harmonize with all other true theories, rather than with so many\nfalse theories.\n\n\nTHEORIES OF EVOLUTION\n\nEvolution in one sense, means growth or development,--literally,\nunrolling or unfolding. It is difficult to give a clear definition\nthat will apply to each of the various theories that are held.\nTheories differ vastly in the extent of their application, as held by\ntheir various advocates, resulting in great confusion of terms:--\n\n1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not\ncreated, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful of\nthe whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable\ndoctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme\natheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, \"exalt the monkey,\nand degrade man.\"\n\n2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all\nplants and animals, including man, are developed from certain original\nsimple germs, was Lamarck, a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded\nthat God created matter,--nothing more. He believed in spontaneous\ngeneration, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.\n\n3. Darwin goes a step further and concedes there may have been a\nCreator of matter, and of one, or at most, a few germs, from which all\nvegetation and all animals came by evolution,--all orders, classes,\nfamilies, genera, species, and varieties. He differs from Lamarck, by\nallowing the creation of one germ, possibly a few more. He says in his\n\"Origin of Species,\" \"I believe that animals are descended from at\nmost only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lesser\nnumber.... Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the\nbelief that all animals and plants are descended from one\nprototype.... All the organic beings, which have ever lived on the\nearth, may be descended from some _one_ primordial form.\" Darwin,\nbecause of his great scholarship, fairness, and candor, won for his\ntheory more favor than it inherently deserves.  Darwin taught that,\n\"The lower impulses of vegetable life pass, by insensible gradations,\ninto the instinct of animals and the higher intelligence of man,\"\nwithout purpose or design. None of these three hypotheses can admit\nthe creation of man.\n\n4. Other evolutionists, believing in the evolution of both plants and\nanimals, nevertheless refuse to believe in the evolution of man--the\nmost baneful application of the whole theory. Even if there were\nconvincing proof of the evolution of plants and animals from one germ,\nthere is no real proof of the evolution of man. To prove this is the\nchief purpose of this book.\n\n5. A fifth theory of evolution is held by many. It is called\npolyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks,\nor beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to\nchange and growth, deterioration and development, according to his\nplan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved,\nis in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants,\nanimals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the\nmonophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animals\nincluding man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation\nor spontaneous generation. Evolution is used throughout this book in\nthis latter sense, unless otherwise indicated by the context. God does\nnot create by evolution, for it can only develop what already exists.\n\nThis book is divided into three parts: In Part One, material\nevolution, especially the evolution of the human body, is\ndisproved. In Part Two, the alleged proofs of evolution are examined\nand refuted. In Part Three, the evolution of the soul is shown to be\nimpossible.\n\nThere are in all fifty numbered arguments, including answers to the\narguments of evolutionists.\n\n\n\n\nPART ONE\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY MATHEMATICALLY DISPROVED\n\n\nAny scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible,\nthen probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be\nreconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must be\nreconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, it\nmust be reconcilable with _all_ the facts. Whenever it is\nirreconcilable with _any_ fact, it should be rejected, as it can\nnot be a true theory.  Every true theory passes through these three\nstages,--possibility, probability, and certainty. A theory is not\nscience, until it is certainly true, and so becomes knowledge.  The\nevolution of man from the brute is in the throes of a desperate\nstruggle to show that it may possibly be a true theory or\nhypothesis. Yet some who are ready to admit that they are\n\"scientists,\" claim evolution a proven theory.\n\nIf it can be shown possible for man to have descended or ascended from\nthe lower animals, it will require enormous additional evidence to\nshow that such descent is probable; and still much more to make it\ncertain.\n\nEvery scientific theory, proposed as _possible_, is reconcilable\nwith some facts. Otherwise, it would not have been considered for a\nmoment. Many false hypotheses have been proposed, and accepted as\npossible and even probable, because reconcilable with some facts. The\nPtolemaic theory of the universe, making the earth the centre, around\nwhich the heavens revolved in great concentric spheres, was accepted\nfor 1400 years from A. D.  140, because it explained many things. It\ncorresponded with appearances. It appealed to all. Its advocates had\ngreat difficulty in reconciling it with the motions of the planets,\nwhich were therefore called planets or \"wanderers.\"  But in time the\nCopernican theory prevailed, because it was reconcilable with all the\nfacts. The evidence is so abundant that all claim it the true\ntheory. It is science. It is knowledge.\n\nBecause the Copernican hypothesis, the true theory of the universe,\nwas opposed and rejected, it does not follow that the evolution of man\nis true because it is likewise opposed and rejected. If this new\ntheory, hypothesis, or guess stands, it can only do so, because it\nharmonizes with all the facts. The law of gravitation, and every other\nproven theory harmonizes with all the facts and with all other true\ntheories.\n\nIt will be shown in this book, that a large number of facts can not be\nreconciled with evolution, especially the evolution of man, thus\nproving that it can not be a true theory. We really have a right to\ndemand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent until\nproved. While we are under no obligation to _disprove_ an\nunproven theory, yet it is the shortest way to settle the matter once\nfor all, before it has led multitudes more astray, and wrecked the\nfaith and hopes of the young.\n\nProf. H. H. Newman, in his \"Readings in Evolution,\" p. 57, says,\n\"Reluctant as we may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist\nto admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution.\" \"If\nall the facts are in accord with it, and none are found that are\nincapable of being reconciled with it, a working hypothesis is said to\nhave been advanced to a proven theory.\" Note this admission by a\nleading evolutionist.\n\nEven if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came\nby evolution from one primordial germ, it would not follow that either\nthe body or the soul of man came by evolution. All the arguments\nagainst evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man.\nIn addition, there are many other arguments, that prove the evolution\nof man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals should\never be proved possible.\n\nIn this volume, the claim is made that the evolution of man is\nirreconcilable with a large number of facts. If investigation proves\nthat we have erred in any statement of facts, or if our reasoning in\nany one argument or more is fallacious, we will not lose our case, as\nlong as evolution remains irreconcilable with any other single\nfact. If every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one\nvalid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must\nbe reconcilable with all the facts. One irreconcilable fact is\nsufficient to overthrow evolution. And there are many!\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE\n\nThe evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it\nis totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be\nmathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of\nthe unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the\ntheory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race be\ntrue, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a\ngreat multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth,\nwithout one common language or religion. The present population of the\nglobe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived\nnot earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves\none common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs,\ncommon to various religions, point to one original God-given religion\nin historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions\ninvented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and\nthe migration of nations point to one locality where the human race\nbegan in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a\ncivilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were\ntrue, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as\nnow exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no\nsimilarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if\nanything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by\nevolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove\nevolution impossible.\n\nThe unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that all\nraces interbreed, the most certain test of every species.\n\nAll these facts pointing to the unity of the race in the days of Noah\nand of Adam are irreconcilable with the theory of evolution which\ndenies that unity within the last two million years.\n\nWe shall present these arguments more in detail. The arguments\nimmediately following, especially the first eight, show the unity of\nthe human race in the days of Noah, and thus present insuperable\nobjections to evolution, and confirm the story of man's creation and\nhis destruction by the flood. The following is the first of fifty\nArguments against the evolution of man.\n\n\n\n1. THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD\n\n\nThe population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of\n1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000.  The human race must double\nitself 30.75 times to make this number. This result may be\napproximately ascertained by the following computation:--\n\nAt the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be\ntwo human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the\ntenth, 1024; the twentieth, 1,048,576, the thirtieth, 1,073,741,824;\nand the thirty-first, 2,147,483,648. In other words, if we raise two\nto the thirtieth power, we have 1,073,741,824; or to the thirty-first\npower, 2,147,483,648. Therefore, it is evident even to the school boy,\nthat, to have the present population of the globe, the net population\nmust be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one\ntimes. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all\nallowances are made for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses\nof all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times,\nwe would have the present population of the globe.\n\nNow, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint\ntext, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since\nthe ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By\ndividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years\nfor the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present\npopulation. This is a reasonable average length of time.\n\nMoreover, it is singularly confirmed by the number of Jews, or\ndescendants of Jacob. According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since\nthe marriage of Jacob. By the same method of calculation as above, the\nJews, who, according to the Jewish yearbook for 1922, number\n15,393,815, must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once\nevery 161.251 years. The whole human race, therefore, on an average\nhas doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251\nyears. What a marvelous agreement! We would not expect the figures to\nbe exactly the same nor be greatly surprised if one period were twice\nthe other. But their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of\nthe human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of\nGod by the most proficient chronologists. If the human race is\n2,000,000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years, or\n402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable.\n\nWhile the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet\nthere are few things so stable and certain as general average, where\nlarge numbers and many years are considered, as in the present\ncase. No life insurance company, acting on general average statistics,\never failed on that account. The Jews and the whole human race have\nlived together the same thirty-eight centuries with very little\nintermarriage, and are affected by similar advantages and\ndisadvantages, making the comparison remarkably fair.\n\nAlso, the 25,000,000 descendants of Abraham must have doubled their\nnumbers every 162.275 years, during the 3,988 years since the birth of\nhis son Ishmael. These periods of doubling which tally so closely,\n168.3 years for the whole race, 161.251 for the Jews, and 162.275\nyears for the descendants of Abraham, cannot be a mere coincidence,\nbut are a demonstration against the great age of man required by\nevolution, and in favor of the 5,177 years since Noah. None of the\nother various chronologies would make any material difference in these\ncalculations.  The correspondence of these figures, 168.3, 161.251 and\n162.275 is so remarkable that it must bring the conviction to every\nserious student that the flood destroyed mankind and Noah became the\nhead of the race.\n\nNow the evolutionists claim that the human race is 2,000,000 years\nold. There is no good reason for believing that, during all these\nyears the developing dominant species would not increase as rapidly as\nthe Jews, or the human race in historic times, especially since the\nrestraints of civilization and marriage did not exist. But let us\ngenerously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one\npair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years, one-tenth as rapidly as\nthe Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the\n1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures\nfollowing. The population of the world, therefore, would have been\n18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion,\ndecillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or\n18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion,\nvigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.\n\nOr, let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a\nsingle pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by\nany evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the\npopulation doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net\nincrease, a most generous estimate. The present population of the\nglobe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every\nman, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater\nallowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without\nblushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the\nancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000\nor 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population\nhad increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more\nthan two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made,\nor ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand\nas the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a\nnew guess. Q. E. D.\n\nAll these computations have been made upon the supposition that the\nhuman race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, as\nthe evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormously\nincreased.\n\nYet we are gravely told that evolution is \"science\". It is the wildest\nguess ever made to support an impossible theory.\n\nThat their guesses can not possibly be correct, is proven also by\napproaching the subject from another angle. If the human race is\n2,000,000 years old, and must double its numbers 30.75 times to make\nthe present population, it is plain that each period for doubling\nwould be 65,040 years, since {2,000,000/30.75} = 65,040. At that rate,\nthere would be fewer than four Jews! If we suppose the race to have\nsprung from one pair 100,000 years ago, it would take 3252 years to\ndouble the population. At this rate, there would be five Jews!\n\nDo we need any other demonstration that the evolution of man is an\nabsurdity and an impossibility? If the evolutionists endeavor to show\nthat man _may_ have descended from the brute, the population of\nthe world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROM\nTHE BRUTE. If they ever succeed in showing that all species of animals\n_may_ have been derived from one primordial germ, it is\nimpossible that man so came. He was created as the Bible declares, by\nthe Almighty Power of God.\n\nThe testimony of all the experts in the famous Scopes trial in\nTennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that\nevolution was in harmony with _some_ facts and therefore\n_possibly true_. The above mathematical calculations prove that\nthe evolution of man was certainly not true. They fail to make their\ncase even if we grant their claims. These figures prove the Bible\nstory, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of\nman. It will be observed that the above calculations point to the\nunity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago, rather than in\nthe days of Adam 7333 years ago, according to Hales' chronology. If\nthe race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the\nFlood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe. This most merciful\nprovidence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.\n\nNow, if there had been no flood to destroy the human race, then the\ndescendants of Adam, in the 7333 years, would have been 16,384 times\nthe 1,804,187,000, or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish\nrate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population would\nhave been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832. These calculations are\nin perfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of\nman, and the destruction of the race by a flood. Had it not been for\nthe flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of\nAdam. Is not this a demonstration, decisive and final?\n\n\n\n2. THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES\n\n\nThe unity of the languages of the world proves the recent common\norigin of man. Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists,\ndeclared that all languages are derived from one. This is abundantly\nproven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammatical\nconstruction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of their\nalphabets, etc. The words for father and mother similar in form, for\nexample, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, the\nAryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups,\nshowing a common original language and proving the early existence of\nthe home and civilization. The similarity of these and many other\nwords in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages,\nspoken in all continents is common knowledge.  Lord Avebury names 85\nHamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and mother\nare similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, including\nTurkish, Thibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 in\nNew Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken by\nAmerican Indians. The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are\ndaughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and the\nAryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, the\ndaughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediate\ndescendants.  There can not well be more than 4 generations of\nlanguages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the development\nof the 1000 languages and dialects. The American Indians have\ndeveloped about 200 in 3,000 or 4,000 years. The life of a language\nroughly speaking, seems to range from 1000 to 3,000 years. The time\nsince Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages of\nthe world. But if man has existed for 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 years,\nwith a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would have\nbeen multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or no\nresemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They were\nnever spoken because no one lived to speak them.\n\nMany linguists insist that the original language of mankind consisted\nof a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use only\nabout 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters; the\nstagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanscrit, about the same. All the Semitic\nlanguages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages is\nto grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a few\nsmall words must have been close to the original mother tongue. No\nlanguage could have come down from the great antiquity required by\nevolution and have so few words. Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000\nwords; modern Dictionaries over 300,000. The evidence points to the\norigin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves the\ngreat antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitiful\nabsurdity.\n\n\n\n3. RELIGIONS\n\n\nThe unity of ancient religions proves the creation of man who received\na divine revelation. According to evolution, all religions were\nevolved or invented by humanoids.  In that case, we would expect them\nto be widely divergent; and we would be surprised, if they agreed on\ngreat and important points, and especially on points which could not\nbe clearly arrived at by reason. For instance, what in reason teaches\nus that an animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God? How could\nunassisted reason ever arrive at the conclusion that God is properly\nworshipped by sacrificing a sheep or an ox? If we grant that one\nsection of the anthropoid host might have stumbled on the idea, how\ncan we account for its prevalence or its universality?  A very high\nauthority says, \"Sacrifices were common to all nations of antiquity,\nand therefore, traced by some to a personal revelation.\" By\nrevelation, we learn that the animal sacrifice prefigured the Lamb\nslain on Calvary. It was revealed. No race of monkey-men could ever\nhave invented the idea.\n\nThe most ancient nations worshipped God by sacrifices.  Homer's Iliad\n(1000 B. C.) and other works of Grecian poets are full of it. All the\nclassics, Greek and Latin, are crowded with accounts of offerings. The\nearliest records of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hindus and\nChinese speak of sacrifices long in vogue. This unity of religions on\nthe point of animal sacrifices bespeaks revelation and not evolution.\n\nThe division of time into weeks of 7 days, prevalent among the\nancients, suggests an ancient revelation in commemoration of creation\nas against evolution, which denies creation. The following statements\nfrom Dr. J. R. Dummelow, an eminent commentator, show that the\nBabylonians both divided time into weeks, and offered sacrifices,\npointing to the unity of religions. \"The Babylonians observed the 7th,\n14th, 21st and 28th of each lunar month as days when men were\nsubjected to certain restrictions; the king was not to eat food\nprepared by fire, _nor offer sacrifice,_ nor consult an oracle,\nnor invoke curses on his enemies.\" They also observed the 19th of each\nmonth. It was customary, therefore, in the days of Abraham, for the\nBabylonians to offer sacrifices and to observe the 7th day as\nespecially sacred. This can only be accounted for upon the assumption,\nthat God had revealed to the human race that creation occupied 6 days\nor periods, and the 7th was to be observed,--all of which was\ndoubtless handed down by tradition. There were priests and temples in\nthe most ancient empire known.\n\nDr. Dummelow says: \"It is now widely admitted that the Genesis account\nof creation contains elements of belief which existed perhaps\nthousands of years before the book of Genesis was written, among the\npeoples of Babylonia and Assyria.\" Many of the primeval revelations\nwere handed down by tradition. God communed with Adam.  There are many\nrelics of the original religion: the division of time into weeks, and\nthe institution of the Sabbath day; the sacrifices so common in the\nancient religions; the general existence of priests and temples in all\nages, and among all nations; marriage, the divinely authorized pillar\nof society; the early institution of the family, and the use of the\nroot words for father and mother, in all the most ancient languages,\nand families of languages, as well as in the scattered languages of\nthe earth spoken by the most savage. The belief in the immortality of\nthe soul, is well nigh universal, even among tribes, who, unlike\nPlato, possess no power to reason it from the light of nature. In\ncontrast, we behold the sorry spectacle of the anthropoid\nevolutionists of our day trying to drive from the hearts of men the\nhope of immortality by their \"science falsely so-called.\"  The burial\nof the dead is, no doubt, a relic, since animals, even of the monkey\ntribe, do not bury their dead.\n\n\n\n4. PLACE OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN\n\n\nThe unity of the human race is further proved by the fact that it\noriginated in one locality and not in many.  The locality is the one\ndescribed by Moses. And the fact that Moses correctly located the\nbeginning of the race, when he himself had no personal knowledge,\nproves that he was inspired and taught of God. He never could have\nguessed the spot to which history and the migration of nations point,\nand which the evolutionists themselves are obliged to concede.\n\nThe habitable countries of the world total 50,670,837 sq. mi. We are\nmaking a generous estimate, when we suppose the garden of Eden to have\nbeen 100 mi. wide and 125 mi. long,--12,500 sq. mi. There are 4005\nsuch areas in the habitable globe. It is located in Mesopotamia on the\nTigris and Euphrates rivers.\n\nMaps of ancient nations show that mankind radiated from this\ncentre. The great nations of antiquity were clustered about it. The\nbeginning of the race after the flood was in the same general\nlocality.\n\nRidpath in his great history of the world, graphically shows the\nmigrations of races and nations. With this, even evolutionists\nagree. They draw a line \"according to Giddings,\" running through\nwestern Asia, in the region of the garden of Eden. Since there are\n4005 such areas in the habitable globe, Moses had only one chance out\nof 4005 to guess the spot, if he had not been inspired of God.  Anyone\nguessing, might have located the origin of man in any of the countries\nof Europe, Asia or Africa. This clearly demonstrates that God revealed\nthe truth to Moses, and that the story of creation is true and of\nevolution false.\n\nIf evolution were true, there must have been, 6,000 years ago, many\nheads to the race, in many places. It is incredible that there would\nbe but one spot where brutes became humans. There would be an\ninnumerable host of anthropoid brutes, in many parts of the world, in\nall gradations. Who can believe that one species or one pair forged\nahead so far as to become human?\n\n\n\n5. CIVILIZATIONS\n\n\nThe early civilization of man points to his creation, not his\nevolution. Evolution requires many centers of civilization; creation,\nonly one. Of course, if man is descended from an ancient ape-like\nform, and from the Primates and their brute progeny, he must have been\nas uncivilized and brutish as any baboon or gorilla today, or the\napes, which, last year, horribly mangled the children at Sierra Leone.\nHe must have worked his way up into civilization. The records, as far\nback as they go, prove that the original condition of man was a state\nof civilization, not savagery.  Man fell down, not up.\n\nThe recent explorations in the tomb of Tutankhamen, in Egypt, and the\nmore recent explorations of the tomb of a still more ancient Egyptian\nmonarch, show that a high degree of civilization prevailed from 2000\nto 1300 B.C.  The art displayed in the carvings and paintings, and the\nskill of the artisans are beyond praise. They had knowledge even of\nwhat are now lost arts. They had a written language 300 years before\nHomer wrote his immortal Iliad. Yet many higher critics claim that\nwriting was unknown in the days of Moses and Homer. They declare that\nthe Iliad, a poem in 24 books, was committed to memory, and handed\ndown from generation to generation, 400 years with all its fine poetic\ntouches. Monstrous alternative!  Indeed we are even told that \"Many\nmen must have served as authors and improvers.\" The mob of reciters\nimproved the great epic of Homer! Scarcely less brilliant is the\nsuggestion of another higher critic that, \"Homer's Iliad was not\ncomposed by Homer, but by another man of the same name\"!\n\nThe laws of Hammurabi, who is identified as the Amraphel of Scripture,\nGen. 14:1, and who was contemporary with Abraham, were in existence\nmany hundred years before Moses, and showed a high state of\ncivilization, which began many hundred years before Abraham.  The\nliterature of China goes back to 2000 B. C. The earliest civilization\nof China, Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, reaching to 2500 B.C., or\nearlier, points to a still earlier civilization, which likely reaches\nback to the origin of the human race.\n\nIt is admitted that the earliest (Sumerian) civilization began on the\nEuphrates, near the garden of Eden. They had temples and priests, and,\ntherefore, religion prevailed as well as civilization. The first great\nempires clustered around the places where Adam and Noah lived. No\nother civilization recorded in any quarter reaches farther back.\n\nWe quote from the New International Encyclopedia: \"The Sumerian\nlanguage is probably the oldest known language in the world. From the\nSumerian vocabulary, it is evident that the people who spoke this\nlanguage had reached a comparatively high civilization.\"\n\nThe monuments show that in early historical times, man was in a state\nof civilization. There are no monuments of man's civilization prior to\nhistorical time.\n\nHigher critics have said that Moses could not have written the\nPentateuch because writing was unknown in his day. Yet Prof. A. H.\nSayce, D.D., LL.D., of Oxford University, one of the greatest\narchaeologists the world ever knew, writes: \"Egypt was the first to\ndeliver up its dead. Under an almost rainless sky, where frost is\nunknown, and the sand seals up all that is entrusted to its keeping,\nnothing perishes except by the hand of man. The fragile papyrus,\ninscribed it may be 5,000 years ago, is as fresh and legible as when\nits first possessor died.\n\n\"In Egypt, as far back as the monuments carry us, we find a\nhighly-developed art, a highly organized government, and a\nhighly-educated people. Books were multiplied, and if we can trust the\ntranslation of the Proverbs of Ptah-hotep, the oldest existing book in\nthe world, there were competitive examinations, [civil service!]\nalready in the age of the sixth Egyptian Dynasty.... We have long\nknown that the use of writing for literary purposes is immensely old\nin both Egypt and Babylonia. Egypt was emphatically a land of scribes\nand readers. Already in the days of the Old Empire, the Egyptian\nhieroglyphs had developed into a cursive hand.\"\n\nFrom the Tel el-Amarna tablets, discovered in Upper Egypt, we know\nthat for 100 years people were corresponding with each other, in the\nlanguage of Babylonia in cuneiform characters. Libraries existed then,\nand \"Canaan in the Mosaic age, was fully as literary as was Europe in\nthe time of the Renaissance.\" Ancient Babylonian monuments testify to\nthe existence of an ancient literary culture. The results of the\nexcavations by the American Expedition, published by Prof. Hilprecht,\nof the U. of Pa., show that in the time of King Sargon of Accad, art\nand literature flourished in Chaldea. The region of the garden of Eden\nwas the pivot of the civilization of the world. From this region\nradiated the early civilization of Babylonia, Assyria and Egypt. And\nthe advanced degree implies centuries of prior civilization. The\norigin of man and the earliest civilization occurred in the same\nregion. Ur explorations (1927) show high art, 3000 B.C.\n\nThe earliest records show man was civilized. He lived in houses,\ncities and towns, read and wrote, and engaged in commerce and\nindustry. To be sure, he did not have the inventions of modern\ntimes. If all these were necessary, then there was no civilization\nprior to the 20th century.  Prof. J. Arthur Thompson, of Aberdeen, an\nevolutionist, says: \"Modern research is leading us away from the\npicture of primitive man as brutish, dull, lascivious and\nbellicose. There is more justification for regarding primitive man as\nclever, kindly, adventurous and inventive.\"\n\nIt is admitted that cannibalism was not primeval. The two great\nrevolting crimes of barbarism, cannibalism and human sacrifices, only\nprevailed when man had fallen to the lowest depths, not when he had\nrisen out of savagery to the heights. The assertion that man was\noriginally a brute, savage and uncivilized is pure fiction,\nunsupported by the facts. The original civilization of mankind\nsupports the Bible, and upsets evolution.\n\n\n\n6. THE MENDELIAN INHERITANCE LAW\n\n\nThe unity of the human race is further established by Mendel's\nInheritance Discovery on which evolutionists so much rely. G. Mendel,\nan experimenter, found that when he crossed a giant variety of peas\nwith a dwarf variety, the off-spring were all tall. The giants were\ncalled \"dominant\"; the disappearing dwarfs, \"recessive\". But among the\nsecond generation of this giant offspring, giants and dwarfs appeared\nin the proportion of 3 to 1. But when these dwarfs were\nself-fertilized, successive generations were _all_ dwarfs. The\nrecessive character was not lost, but appeared again. Experiments with\nflowers likewise show that the recessive color will reappear.\n\nAlso experiments with the interbreeding of animals have shown similar\nresults. The recessive or disappearing characteristics, or the\ndisappearing variety, will appear again, in some subsequent\ngeneration, and sometimes becomes permanent. This law prevails widely\nin nature, and the recessive traits appear with the dominant\ntraits. \"If rose-combed fowl were mated with single-combed fowl, the\noffspring were all rose-combed, but when these rose-combed fowl were\nmated, the offspring were again rose-combed and single-combed.... If\ngray rabbits were mated with black rabbits, their hybrids were all\ngray, the black seemingly disappearing, but when the second generation\nwere mated, the progeny were again grays and blacks.\"--God or\nGorilla--p. 278. _The recessive character always reappears._\n\nApply these widely prevalent laws to dominant man and his recessive\nalleged brute ancestor. The simian characteristics would appear in\nsome generations, if not in many. We would expect many offspring _to\nhave the recessive character of the ape_, and we ought not to be\nsurprised, if some recessive stock became permanent.\n\nFollowing analogy, we ought to look for a tribe of human beings that\nhad degenerated into apes. That we find no such recessive\ncharacteristics even among the most degenerate savages, and no such\nape-like tribe of human beings, is a decisive proof that man never\ndescended from the brute. Else such recessive characteristics,\naccording to the Mendelian Law, would be sure to appear. We would also\nfind monkeys and apes,--the recessive species--descended from man.\n\n\n\n7. BIOMETRY\n\n\nEven new sciences, founded by evolutionists, bear witness against\ntheir theory. Mendel's Inheritance Law is one, as we have seen;\nBiometry is another. It was proposed and advocated by Sir Francis\nGalton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. He expected it to be a great prop\nto evolution; on the other hand, it is another proof of the unity of\nour race in Noah's day, and hence fatal to their theory. Biometry is\ndefined to be the \"statistical study of variation and heredity.\" It\nbears heavily against the great age of man.\n\nOne of the leading exponents of Biometry, Dr. C.B.  Davenport,\nSecretary of the Eugenics section of the American Breeders'\nAssociation concludes that \"No people of English descent are more\ndistantly related than thirtieth cousin, while most people are more\nnearly related than that.\" Professor Conklin, of Princeton University,\napproves this conclusion, and adds, \"As a matter of fact most persons\nof the same race are much more closely related than this, and\ncertainly _we need not go back to Adam nor even to Shem, Ham or\nJapheth to find our common ancestor_.\" Dr. Davenport, therefore,\nsays that the English may find a common ancestor thirty-two\ngenerations ago; Professor Conklin admits that we need not go further\nback than Noah to find a common ancestor of all mankind.  Noah,\ntherefore, must have been the head of the race. Evolutionists admit we\nneed go no farther back than Noah to find the head of the race, and\nthe population, as we have seen, proves the same thing, and disproves\nevery guess they have made of the great age of man. We have descended\nfrom Noah and not from the brute.\n\nThis same Professor Conklin says that our race began 2,000,000 years\nago (60,000 generations). How is it possible that we must go back\nsixty thousand generations for a common ancestor, when thirty-two\ngenerations will suffice for the English, and about 200 generations\nsince Noah, for the whole race? If we, by the laws of biometry, can\nfind a common ancestor in Noah, we can not possibly go back 2,000,000\nyears to find one. Professor Conklin's admission refutes his claim of\n2,000,000 years for man.  Biometry proves that age absolutely\nimpossible.\n\nIf the progeny of this ape-like ancestor inter-bred for many\ngenerations,--as certainly would have been the case--then we are not\nonly descended from all the monkey family, the baboon, gorilla, ape,\nchimpanzee, orang-utang lemur (H. G. Wells' ancestor), mongoose, etc.,\nbut are also related to all their progeny. Glorious ancestors! In our\nveins runs the blood of them all, as well as the blood of the most\ndisgusting reptiles. And yet Professor H. H.  Newman, an eminent\nevolutionist, in a letter to the writer, says, \"The evolution idea is\nan ennobling one.\"! But biometry saves us from such repulsive\nforbears, by proving it could not be so.\n\nBiometrists find that there is a Law of Filial Regression, or a\ntendency to the normal in every species, checking the accumulation of\ndepartures from the average, and forbidding the formation of new\nspecies by inheritance of peculiarities. The whole tendency of the\nlaws of nature is against the formation of new species, so essential\nto evolution. The species brings forth still \"after its kind.\"  \"On\nthe average, extreme peculiarities of parents are less extreme in\nchildren.\" \"The stature of adult offspring must, on the whole, be more\nmediocre than the stature of the parents.\" Gifted parents rarely have\nchildren as highly gifted as themselves.\n\nThe tendency is to revert to the normal in body and mind. Nature\ndiscourages the formation of new species, evolutionists to the\ncontrary notwithstanding. \"Like produces like\" is a universal and\nunchangeable law. God has forbidden species to pass their boundaries;\nand, if any individual seems to threaten to do so, by possessing\nabnormal peculiarities, these are soon corrected, often in the next\ngeneration. Even Professor H. H. Newman says, \"On the whole, the\ncontributions of biometry to our understanding of the causes of\nevolution are rather disappointing.\"  A science that upsets evolution\nis certainly disappointing to evolutionists.\n\n\n\n8. NO NEW SPECIES NOW\n\n\nThey tell us that 3,000,000 species of plants and animals developed\nfrom one primordial germ, in 60,000,000 years. How many new species\nshould have arisen in the last 6,000 years? Now 20 doublings of the\nfirst species of animals would make 1,048,576 species, since 2 raised\nto the 20th power becomes 1,048,576. Again we will favor the\nevolutionists, by omitting from the calculation all species of animals\nin excess of 1,048,576. Therefore, on an average, each of the 20\ndoublings would take 1/20 of 60,000,000 years, or 3,000,000 years;\nand, therefore, 1/2 of the entire 1,048,576 species, or 524,288\nspecies, must have originated within the last 3,000,000 years. Can\nthat be the case? Certainly not.\n\nAnd since the number of species must have increased in a geometrical\nratio, 2097 species must have arisen or matured within the last 6000\nyears--an average of one new species of animals every 3 years. How\nmany species actually have arisen within the last 6000 years? 2000?\n200? or 2? It is not proven that _a single new species has arisen in\nthat time_. Not one can be named. If approximately 2000 new species\nhave not arisen in the last 6000 years, the evolution of species can\nnot possibly be true.  Even Darwin says: \"In spite of all the efforts\nof trained observers, not one change of species into another is on\nrecord.\" Sir William Dawson, the great Canadian geologist, says:\n\"_No case is certainly known in human experience_ where any\nspecies of animal or plant has been so changed as to assume all the\ncharacteristics of a new species.\"\n\nIndeed, a high authority says: \"Though, since the human race began,\nall sorts of artificial agencies have been employed, and though there\nhas been the closest scrutiny, yet _not a distinctively new type of\nplant or animal_, on what is called broad lines, has come into\nexistence.\"\n\nNot a single new species has arisen in the last 6000 years when the\ntheory requires over 2000. Evolutionists admit this. Prof. Vernon\nKellogg, of Leland Stanford University, in his \"Darwinism of Today,\"\np. 18, says:--\"Speaking by and large, we only tell the general truth\nwhen we declare that no indubitable cases of species forming, or\ntransforming, that is, of descent, have been observed....  For my\npart, it seems better to go back to the old and safe _ignoramus\nstandpoint_.\"\n\nProf. H. H. Newman, of Chicago University, in answer to the writer's\nquestion, \"How many new species have arisen in the last 6000 years?\"\nwrote this evasive reply: \"I do not know how to answer your\nquestions....  None of us know just what a species is. [If so, how\ncould 3,000,000 species be counted, the number, he says,\nexists?].... It is difficult to say just when a new species has arisen\nfrom an old.\" He does not seem to know of a single new species within\nthe last 6,000 years.\n\nThe same question was asked of Dr. Osborn, of Columbia University,\nN. Y. The answer by R. C. Murphy, assistant, was equally\nindefinite. He wrote: \"From every point of view, your short note of\nAug. 22nd raises questions, which no scientific man can possibly\nanswer. We have very little knowledge as to just when any particular\nspecies of animal arose.\" In a later letter, he says: \"I have no idea\nwhether the number of species which have arisen during the last 6000\nyears is 1 or 100,000.\"\n\nShould those who \"do not know\" speak so confidently in favor of\nevolution, or take the \"old and safe _ignoramus_\" standpoint, as\nProf. Kellogg suggests?\n\nThe number of existing species can not be explained upon the ground of\nevolution, but only upon the ground of the creation of numerous heads\nof animal and plant life, as the Scriptures declare.\n\nWe have a right to increase the pressure of the argument, by\nintroducing into the calculation, the total of 3,000,000 species of\nplants and animals which would require 6355 new species within the\nlast 6000 years, or an average of more than one new species a year!\nAnd they can not point to one new species in 6000 years, as they\nconfess. Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, said\nrecently: \"If the theory of evolution be true, then, during many\nthousands of years, covered in whole or in part by present human\nknowledge, there would certainly be known at least a few instances of\nthe evolution of one species from another. _No such instance is\nknown._\"\n\nProf. Owen declares, \"No instance of change of one species into\nanother has ever been recorded by man.\"\n\nProf. William Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, said, \"It\nis impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin's theory of\nthe origin of species. No explanation whatever has been offered to\naccount for the fact that, after forty years, no evidence has been\ndiscovered to verify his genesis of species.\"\n\nAlthough scientists have so largely discarded Darwin's theory, the\nutter lack of new species in historic time, when so many are required\nby _every_ theory of evolution, is a mathematical demonstration\nthat the whole theory of evolution must be abandoned. Q. E. D. Why do\nthey still insist it _may be true_?\n\n\n\n9. MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY\n\n\nMathematical Probability is a branch or division of mathematics by\nmeans of which the odds in favor or against the occurrence of any\nevent may be definitely computed, and the measure of the probability\nor improbability exactly determined. Its conclusions approximate\ncertainty and reveal how wild the guesses of evolutionists are.\n\nThe evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical\nprobability. It is so improbable that one and only one species out of\n3,000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the\ncase. All had the same start, many had similar environments. Yet\nwitness the motly products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk,\nscorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm,\nand countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize,\nmushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc. All developed\nfrom one germ, all in some way related. Mark well the difference in\nsize between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and the\ndifference in intellect between man and the lobster!\n\nWhile all had the same start, only one species out of 3,000,000\nreached the physical and intellectual and moral status of man. Why\nonly one? Why do we not find beings equal or similar to man, developed\nfrom the cunning fox, the faithful dog, the innocent sheep, or the\nhog, one of the most social of all animals? Or still more from the\nmany species of the talented monkey family?  Out of 3,000,000 chances,\nis it not likely that more than one species would attain the status of\nman?\n\n\"Romanes, a disciple of Darwin, after collecting the manifestations of\nintelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals,\nfound that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15\nmonths old.\" Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to\nreason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much\nconscience. Why have not many species filled the great gap between man\nand the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male?\nOr one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be\nmales but one?  To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found by\nevolutionists belong to males except one. Strange! If 3,000,000\npennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall\nwith heads up, save one? The Revolutionary war, out of 3,000,000\npeople, developed one great military chieftain, but many more\napproximating his ability; one or more great statesmen with all\ngradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others\nlittle inferior; but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or\n10,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished\nbeyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far\nahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other\nspecies. It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the\nmeasureless distance between the monkey and man. It violates\nmathematical probability.\n\nWe have a right to expect, in many species and in large numbers, all\ngradations of animals between the monkey and man in size, intellect,\nand spirituality. Where are the anthropoids and their descendants\nalleged to have lived during the 2,000,000 years of man's evolution?\nThey can not be found living or dead. They never existed. Creation\nalone explains the great gap. What signs have we that other species\nwill ever approximate, equal or surpass man in attainments? Can we\nhope that, in the far distant future, a baboon will write an epic\nequal to Milton's Paradise Lost, or a bull-frog compose an oratorio\nsurpassing Handel's Messiah?\n\nWe find all gradations of species in size from the largest to the\nsmallest. Why not the same gradation in _intelligence, conscience\nand spirituality_? The difference in brain, capacity and\nintelligence between man and the ape is 50% greater than the\ndifference in size between the elephant and the housefly. There are\nmany thousands of species to fill the gap in size. Why not many\nthousands to fill the greater gap in intelligence? Evidently no\nspecies became human by growth. Many species like the amoeba, and the\nmicroscopic disease germs, have not developed at all but are the same\nas ever. Many other species of the lower forms of life have remained\nunchanged during the ages.  If the tendency is to develop into the\nhigher forms of life, why do we have so many of those lower forms\nwhich have remained stationary? Growth, development, evolution, is\nnot, by any means, a universal rule.\n\nEvolution is not universally true in any sense of the term. Why are\nnot fishes _now_ changing into amphibians, amphibians into\nreptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and monkeys into man? If\ngrowth, development, evolution, were the rule, there would be no lower\norder of animals for all have had sufficient time to develop into the\nhighest orders. Many have remained the same; some have deteriorated.\n\nAnd now we have a new amendment to the theory of evolution: We are\ntold that the huge Saurians (reptiles) overworked the development\nidea, and became too large and cumbersome, and hence are now\nextinct. Prof. Cope says:--\"Retrogression in nature is as well\nestablished as evolution.\" It seems that man also has, contrary to all\nformer conceptions, reached the limit of his development, if he has\nnot already gone too far.\n\nProf. R. S. Lull says, (Readings p. 95) \"Man's physical evolution has\nvirtually ceased, but in so far as any change is being effected, it is\nlargely retrogressive. Such changes are: Reduction of hair and teeth,\nand of hand skill; and dulling of the senses of sight, smell and\nhearing upon which active creatures depend so largely for safety.\nThat sort of charity which fosters the physically, mentally and\nmorally feeble, and is thus contrary to the law of natural selection,\nmust also, in the long run, have an adverse effect upon the race.\" Too\nbad that Christian charity takes care of the feeble, endangering\nevolution, and the doctrine that the weak have no rights that the\nstrong are bound to respect! We are not surprised that Nietzsche,\nwhose insane philosophy that _might is right_, helped to bring on\nthe world war, died in an insane asylum.\n\nAfter all, evolution is not progress and development, but\nretrogression and deterioration as well.\n\nBut evolutionists, compelled by the requirements of their theory, have\nadded another amendment, which will seem ridiculous to some:\n\nEnvironment has had an evolution as well as plants and animals! Having\ndenied the existence of God, or his active control and interference,\nthey must account for environment by evolution. Listen:--\"Henderson\npoints out that environment, no less than organisms, has had an\nevolution. Water, for example, has a dozen unique properties that\ncondition life. Carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to life. The\nproperties of the ocean are so beautifully adjusted to life that we\nmarvel at the exactness of its fitness. [Yet no design!]. Finally, the\nchemical properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are equally unique\nand unreplaceable. The evolution of environment and the evolution of\norganisms have gone hand in hand.\" And all by blind chance! Is it not\na thousand times better to believe that all things were created by an\nall-wise and all powerful God? How could a lifeless environment come\nby evolution? If we would listen to them, we would be told that the\nocean, the atmosphere, heat, light, electricity, all the elements, the\nstarry heavens, and all the universe, and religion itself, came by\nevolution, some grudgingly granting that God _may_ have created\nmatter in the beginning.\n\nIt is unreasonable to believe that one species and only one out of\n3,000,000 by evolution should attain the status of mankind; and that\none species and only one species of the primates should reach the\nheights of intelligence, reason, conscience and spirituality. Huxley\nsays, \"There is an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite,\nbetween the lowest man and the highest beast.\"\n\nTo declare that our species alone crossed this measureless gulf, while\nour nearest relatives have not even made a fair start, is an affront\nto the intelligence of the thoughtful student. It does fierce violence\nto the doctrine of mathematical probability. It could not have\nhappened.\n\n\n\n10. THE AGE OF THE EARTH\n\n\nThe estimates of the age of the world vary from 16,000,000 years to\n100 times this number or 1,600,000,000 years. Even H.G. Wells admits\nthese estimates \"rest nearly always upon theoretical assumptions of\nthe slenderest kind.\" This is undoubtedly true of the reckless\nestimates of evolutionists, whose theory requires such an enormous\nlength of time that science can not concede it.  Prof. H.H. Newman\nsays, \"The last decade has seen the demise (?) of the outworn (?)\nobjection to evolution, based on the idea that there has not been time\nenough for the great changes that are believed by evolutionists to\nhave occurred. Given 100,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years since life\nbegan we can then allow 1,000,000 years for each important change to\narise and establish itself.\"\n\nAn objection is not \"outworn\" until answered, and to speak of the\ndemise of a generally accepted theory is hardly scientific. We will\nnot allow the evolutionist to dismiss so weighty an objection with a\nwave of the hand.  Prof. Newman, in his \"Readings in Evolution,\"\np. 68, gives 60,000,000 years as the probable time since life began.\nThe writer, having based arguments upon that assumption, was surprised\nto receive a private letter from him claiming that life has existed\nfor 500,000,000 years.  Indeed Prof. Russell, of Princeton, says, in\nhis \"Rice Lectures,\" that the earth is probably 4,000,000,000 years\nold, possibly 8,000,000,000! We can do nothing but gasp, while the\nbewildering guesses come in, and we wait for the next estimate. We\nnote their utter abandon, as they make a raid on God's eternity to\nsupport a theory that would dethrone Him.\n\nBut these extravagantly long periods required by the theory, science\ncannot grant, for the following reasons:--\n\n\n1. According to the nebular hypothesis, and Helmholtz's contraction\ntheory, accounting for the regular supply of heat from the sun, the\nsun itself is not likely more than 20,000,000 years old, and, of\ncourse, the earth is much younger. Both of these theories are quite\ngenerally accepted by scientists, and have much to support them.\nProf. Young, of Princeton, in his Astronomy, p. 156, says, \"The solar\nradiation can be accounted for on the hypothesis first proposed by\nHelmholtz, that the sun is shrinking slowly but continually. It is a\nmatter of demonstration that an annual shrinkage of about 300 feet in\nthe sun's diameter would liberate sufficient heat to keep up its\nradiation without any fall in its temperature\".... The sun is not\nsimply cooling, nor is its heat caused by combustion; for, \"If the sun\nwere a vast globe of solid anthracite, in less than 5,000 years, it\nwould be burned to a cinder.\" We quote from Prof. Young's Astronomy:\n\"We can only say that while no other theory yet proposed meets the\nconditions of the problem, this [contraction theory] appears to do so\nperfectly, and therefore has high probability in its favor.\" \"No\nconclusion of Geometry,\" he continues, \"is more certain than\nthis,--that the shrinkage of the sun to its present dimensions, from a\ndiameter larger than that of the orbit of Neptune, the remotest of the\nplanets, _would generate about 18,000,000 times as much heat as the\nsun now radiates in a year_. Hence, if the sun's heat has been and\nstill is wholly due to the contraction of its mass, it can not have\nbeen radiating heat at the present rate, on the shrinkage hypothesis,\nfor more than 18,000,000 years; and on that hypothesis, the solar\nsystem in anything like its present condition, can not be much more\nthan as old as that.\" If so, evolution, on account of lack of time,\ncan not possibly be true. If we add many millions of years to this\nnumber, or double it more than once, the time is not yet\nsufficient. For if the sun is 25,000,000, or even 50,000,000 years\nold, by the time the planets are thrown off, in turn, from Neptune to\nthe earth, and then the earth cooled sufficiently for animal life,\nonly a few million years would be left for evolution, a mere fraction\nof the time required. This is a mathematical demonstration that\nevolution can not be true. The same calculations, 18,000,000 to\n20,000,000 years, have been made by Lord Kelvin, Prof. Todd and other\nastronomers.\n\n2. The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the\ngreat age of the earth, required by evolution.  The temperature\nincreases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50\nfeet, or 100 degrees per mile.  Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil;\nat 18 mi., glass would melt (1850\u00b0); at 28 mi., every known substance\nwould melt (2700\u00b0). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles\nthick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if\nthe thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the\nSan Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the\ncrust is 21.91 mi.  thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380\nyears. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's\nage at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210\nyears. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have\nelapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the\nfew millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render\nevolution possible.  Note how these figures agree with the age of the\nearth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of\nthe earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and\nthe 9000 tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of\nthe world.\n\n3. The surface marks on the earth point to much shorter periods of\ntime since the earth was a shoreless ocean than those required by\nevolutionists, who are so reckless in their guesses and\nestimates. They help themselves to eternity without stint. Charles\nLyell, a geologist of Darwin's time, set the example when he said,\n\"The lowest estimate of time required for the formation of the\nexisting delta of the Mississippi is 100,000 years.\" According to\ncareful examination made by gentlemen of the Coast Survey and other\nU.S. officers, the time was 4,400 years--a disinterested decision. In\nthe face of these three arguments, it is a bit reckless to say the\nearth has existed, 1,600,000,000 years,--nearly 100 times as long as\nproven possible by mathematical calculation. And still more reckless\nis the estimate of Prof. Russell, 4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000\nyears, founded on the radio-activity theory.  All these wild estimates\nare out of the question.\n\nThe recession of the Niagara Falls from Lake Ontario required only\n7,000 to 11,000 years. It required only 8,000 years for the\nMississippi River to excavate its course.\n\nProf. Winchell estimates that the Mississippi River, has worn a gorge\n100 feet deep, 8 miles long, back to the Falls of St. Anthony, in\nabout 8,000 years. The whole thickness of the Nile sediment, 40 feet\nin one place, was deposited in about 13,000 years. Calculations by\nSouthall and others from certain strata have fixed man's first\nappearance on the earth at 8,000 years, in harmony with Scripture.\n\nLeConte, in his Geology, p. 19, says, \"Making due allowance for all\nvariations, it is probable that all land-surfaces are being cut down\nand lowered by rain and river erosion, at a rate of one foot every\n5,000 years. At this rate, if we take the mean height of lands as 1200\nfeet, and there be no antagonistic agency at work raising the land,\nall lands would be cut down to the sea level and disappear in\n6,000,000 years.\"\n\nMay we not from these data, judge approximately of the age of the\nworld, and show by this proof also, that the world can not be at all\nas old as the evolution theory demands? If the surface of the earth\nwill be worn down 1200 feet on an average in 6,000,000 years, would it\nnot also be true that the surface has been worn down at least 1200\nfeet in the last 6,000,000 years? For the higher the surface, the more\nrapid the erosion. And if the earth is 8,302,210 years old, as Lord\nKelvin computes, then at the same rate, it must have been worn down an\naverage of 1660 feet,--38% more than remains. Is this not a fair\nestimate for the amount of erosion and the age of the world? How high\nmust the land have averaged, if the world is even 60,000,000 years\nold?\n\nIf this be true, how long would it have taken erosion in the past, to\nreduce the land to its present configuration,--the short period\nindicated by science, or the immensely long period required by\nevolution?\n\nBut the evolutionists are clinging to the radio-activity theory\ndesperately, an S.O.S. of a lost cause, depending, like evolution, on\na great many assumptions, and unproven hypotheses. The assumption is\nthat a radio-active substance, like uranium, \"decays,\" or passes into\nmany other substances, of which radium is one, finally producing lead\nin 1,000,000,000 years or more. From this theory, Prof.  Russell\nconcludes that the earth is 4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years old,\nand the sun is older still. During this inconceivably long period, the\nsun was giving out as much heat as at present, which is 2,200,000,000\ntimes as much as the earth receives. The heat of the sun can not be\naccounted for, by either the combustion or cooling off theory. By the\ncommonly accepted contraction theory, the heat has been maintained\nonly about 20,000,000 years.  How could it have been sustained\n4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years? Prof. Russell answers: \"We must\ntherefore _suppose_ that energy from an 'unknown source' becomes\navailable at exceedingly high temperatures.... We can not do more than\n_guess_ where it is hidden.\" Is this scientific? This theory,\nmoreover, is interlocked with Einstein's theory of Relativity, which\nholds that all energy has mass, and all mass is equivalent to\nenergy. Although 2700 books have been written, pro and con, upon\nEinstein's theory, yet he says only 12 men understand it, and a\nscientist retorts that Einstein can not be one of the 12.  The\ncontraction theory, the thickness of the cooled crust of the earth,\nand the conformation of its surface, all give mathematical proof that\nevolution is impossible because of lack of time.\n\n\n\n11. GEOLOGY AND HISTORY\n\n\nDuring the historical period, the species have remained unchanged. If\nover 1,000,000 species of animals have arisen in the 60,000,000 years,\nas is claimed, over 2000 of them must have arisen in the last 6,000\nyears. As evolutionists can not name a single new species that has\narisen within that time, their theory falls to the ground. No species\nin that time, has passed into another. No species has been divided\ninto two or more. No lower species has advanced into a higher. History\ngives no scrap of evidence in support of evolution. Even the horse,\nwhose history has been dubiously traced for 3,000,000 years, has been\na horse unchanged for the last 6,000 years. Even if the missing links\nin the development of the horse _could_ be supplied, it would\nstill be the same species all the while.  But there are no\ntransitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of the\nhorse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size. Many\nvarieties and individuals under the skill of man have been developed\nand improved, but not a single new species in historic time.  There\nare 5,000 varieties of apples but no new species. But when the\nevolutionist is hard pressed to answer, he takes to the wilds of\neternity where it is hard to pursue him, and to check up on his\nguesses. He answers that changes are so slow, and take so many\nmillions of years, that they can not tell of a single new species in\nthe last 6,000 years, when over 2,000 are required.\n\nHe appeals to Geology, which is history down to historic time,\nexpecting to take advantage of the ignorance of the careless student.\n\nBut Geology will not aid him to prove his reckless theory. Even Darwin\ncomplained that the evidences from Geology were scanty. Geology\ntestifies: The genera and species of fossil animals are as distinct as\nthose now living; new species appear at certain epochs entirely\ndifferent from those which preceded; often the most perfect specimens\nof a new species appear at the beginning of a geologic period rather\nthan at its close, leaving no room for evolution; no species is shown\nchanging into another; and many species are largest at the\nbeginning. As Geology is brought in as a hopeful witness by\nevolutionists, they are bound by a well-known principle of law, to\naccept the statements of their own witness even though fatal to their\ntheory.\n\nFor them, Geology furnishes sorry evidence concerning the evolution of\nman from the brute. The great scheme of evolution claims as its chief\nsupport four geologic \"finds.\" We can not be certain that any one of\nthese has the slightest evidential value. An ardent evolutionist, Dr.\nDubois, found a few bones, part ape, part human, buried in the river\n_sands_, 40 feet deep. They were scattered 50 feet apart, no two\njoined together. They called this strange creature pithecanthropus,\nand fixed its age at 750,000 years; others reduced it to 375,000\nyears. These few bones are no doubt from a modern ape and modern man.\n\nThe Heidelberg Jaw was also found _in the sand_, and is guessed\nto be 700,000 years old. It is hard to be respectful while they\ngravely tell such stories. But the next is even worse: The Piltdown\nman, alias the Piltdown fake, fabricated out of a few bones of a man\nand a few of an ape. It is rejected as a fabrication even by many\nevolutionists.\n\n\nThe Neanderthal man lived, they say, about 50,000 years ago. A part of\na skull was found in a cave.\n\nAll the bones purporting to belong to these four creatures would not\ntogether make one complete skeleton, or even one complete skull. A\nchild could carry all this \"evidence\" in a basket. These skulls can be\nduplicated by abnormal skulls in many graveyards today. Scientists are\nnot certain they belong to the same individual. Part ape, part\nhuman. A desperate effort to get convincing evidence, where there is\nnone. We can not be certain they lived in the age claimed. Scientists,\neven evolutionists, differ widely.\n\nIn contrast to this scant and uncertain evidence, Ales Hrdlicka, of\nthe Smithsonian Institution, speaking of a single locality, says, \"Near\nLyons, France, the skeletons of 200,000 prehistoric horses are\nscattered. In one cave in Moravia, there are enough mammoth teeth to\nfill a small sized hall.... From the Heidelberg man, there is\npractically no record for about 200,000 years. The kinship of the\nPiltdown Java and Heidelberg man _is open to dispute_.  The\nNeanderthal man may not have been a direct ancestor, of the species\nwhich produced Shakespeare, Napoleon and Newton.\" Remains of the\nunchanged ape are abundant.  But the alleged human remains are scanty\nand uncertain.'  Now if there were millions and billions of human\nbeings developing from the brutes, should we not expect as many\nremains as of horses and mammoths and apes? We do not have millions of\nthem, simply because they did not exist. Is not this well nigh a\ndemonstration?\n\nShall we, upon this scant and uncertain evidence, accept a theory that\nshocks the reason and the moral sense of mankind, and which leads\nnaturally to infidelity and atheism, and takes away even our hope of\nimmortality?  Later in this volume we will consider more fully the\nalleged proofs from these geologic \"finds.\"\n\nProf. Charles Lyell said: \"In the year 1806, the French Institute\nenumerated not less than 80 geological theories which were hostile to\nthe Scriptures; but not one of these theories is held today.\"\n\nMany have come to the hasty conclusion that there was a continuous\nelaboration or a progressive growth among all species. True in some\ncases, but by no means universal.  Many species have remained stable\nfor millions of years; many have retrograded and deteriorated. Indeed,\nsome evolutionists claim man has retrograded.\n\nMany species of animals have been larger than their modern\ndescendants. Many species show no change. All the bacilli remain the\nsame microscopic species, even those too microscopic to be seen or\nisolated. They multiply the same, and produce the same diseases. How\ncan there be growth in the microscopic world either animal or\nvegetable?  The doctrine that there is a development and a growth\namong all species of animals or plants, is contradicted by the\nfacts. If that doctrine were true, there would be no lower order of\nanimals after so many millions of years of growth. All would have been\nlarge and of a high order like others. Since we find a majority of all\nanimal species less in size than the fly, there has been little growth\nin most species, and in many, none at all. The amoebae, one celled\nanimals, smaller than a small pin-head, have existed unchanged since\nlife began. If plants and animals all developed from a one-celled\nanimal, such as the amoeba, why did not the amoeba develop? Or, if\nsome developed, why not all? Certainly there would not remain a great\nmultitude of species in the microscopic world.\n\nOf many species small and large, we have many fossils preserved but\n_no transitional forms_. The arch\u00e6opteryx, a bird with a\nfeathered tail, is the only alleged transitional form between the\nreptiles and the birds. Only two specimens of this same animal have\nbeen found. This could easily be an exceptional species of created\nbirds differing no more from the normal bird than the ostrich or\nhumming bird. If there were transitional forms we ought to have them\nby the millions. No transitional forms have been found between\nreptiles and mammals; and we have seen that there are no reliable\nforms between man and mammals. The numerous missing links make a chain\nimpossible.  Evolution is not simply growth or change, but the\ndevelopment of all species from one germ.\n\n\n\n12. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION\n\n\nGeographical Distribution, another witness claimed by the\nevolutionists, bears testimony, which they are bound, in law, to\nreceive.\n\nWe find animals whose power of locomotion is very limited, scattered\nall over the world, like the mollusca and crustacea, embracing a large\nnumber of families, genera, and species. It is incredible that these\nall originated in one place, and from one germ, and migrated to\ndistant parts of the world. The oyster, for example, is found in\nEurope, Africa, North and South America. There are over 200 species,\nfound in all warm tempered climates, but none in the coldest\nregions. How could they cross the ocean and be distributed along all\ncontinents? They are soon attached to solid rocks, or other supports,\nand do not move at all. And if they do, how could they cross thousands\nof miles of ocean barren of all food?\n\nDr. George W. Field, an expert authority, says the oysters of Europe\nare unisexual, but in America, they are double-sexed. How could one be\nderived from the other?  Even the oyster is too much for the\nevolutionist. The same argument applies to a great multitude of\nspecies, that have little or no powers of locomotion.\n\nIf all plants and animals originated from one germ in one place, how\ncan plants, indigenous to a single continent, or hemisphere, be\naccounted for? Why, for example, was there no maize, or Indian corn,\nin the old world? Or tomatoes, potatoes, or any other plants\nindigenous to America?  If these once existed in the old world, as\nthey must have done, according to the theory, why were they found in\nAmerica alone?\n\nHere we quote from Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest authorities the\nworld ever knew: \"I will, therefore, consider the transmutation theory\nof species as a _scientific mistake, untrue in its facts,\nunscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency.\" (Italics\nours and yours)._\n\n\n\n13. GOD NOT ABSENT NOR INACTIVE\n\n\nThe theory that God is absent or inactive is as untenable and\nGod-dishonoring as the discarded theory of atheism itself.\n\nEvolution, as held by many, harmonizes with and supports the false and\nimpossible assumption that God created one, or at most, a few germs,\nfrom which all animal species including man, and plants developed, by\n\"natural law.\" This theory seems plausible to those who do not examine\nit too closely. It does not deny the existence of God, and concedes he\nmay have created one or more germs, but delegated the development of\nan orderly world to \"natural law.\" Thus his activities are no longer\nneeded.  Perhaps they entertain the thought that God must grow weary\nunder the active and sleepless control of the universe, if not of the\nworld alone. They lose sight of the fact that a God of infinite mind\nand power can not be wearied by any possible complications, or any\nrequired amount of energy. Rather, the exercise of unlimited energy is\na source of pleasure and happiness. May we not learn this from the\nboundless extent of the universe?  Creation is not a task, but a great\nsatisfaction. If God finds so much happiness in creating a boundless\nuniverse, would he renounce the pleasure of the active care and\ncontrol of 3,000,000 species?\n\n\nThe hypothesis that God delegates to \"law\" the evolution of the\nuniverse, the world, and all species, is untenable, because no law,\nhuman or divine, can enforce itself.  Law has no power. It is not a\nbeing, a creature, a living thing. It is absolutely helpless. It can\nnot be God's agent to carry out his will. Why the need of it? Why\nshould not God use his power direct to do his will? What gain in\ncreating and employing an agent? Which would be easier, to execute his\nown will, or delegate it to a law?\n\nHis law is simply the record of his acts. He executes his own will\nwith exact regularity. He does not vary.  Hence, all his creatures may\ndepend on regularity. It seems like law. The power in every case is\nthe power of God. Law has no power. The law of gravitation has no\npower. Matter has no power. One of the primary lessons we learn in\nphysics is the inertia of matter. Matter can not move, unless moved\nupon; nor stop of itself, when once in motion. Absolutely powerless!\nThe power of attraction, which we may call a property of matter, is\nreally the power of God. The effects are the results of power and\nintelligence. Law has neither power nor intelligence.  Human law marks\nout the course man _should_ pursue.  Divine law records the\ncourse God _has_ pursued. Human law must be enforced by all the\nexecutive power of the nation. God executes his own will, with perfect\nregularity; and, by courtesy of language, we call it \"law.\" He is the\ngreat executor of the universe, not far removed, but proven present\neverywhere, by the power and wisdom necessary to produce the results.\nThese results are found in the boundless universe, and in the\nmicroscopic world.  They are found in the world far below the power of\nthe most powerful microscope to detect. All the combinations of\nchemical elements are made, hidden from the eye of the microscope.\nSubstances are dissolved and new combinations made, atoms are\nnumbered, counted and combined with mathematical precision, and with\nan intelligence difficult for man to compute. No law could do\nthis. Only a Being who has sufficient power and intelligence is equal\nto it. Law has no power, nor intelligence. Water is composed of two\natoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, combined with absolute precision\neverywhere. All chemical reactions require computations of an\nintelligent being. All nature teems with proofs that God is every\nwhere present.  The elements in a high explosive are arranged\ninstantly in new combinations, each atom taking its proper partners,\nin the proper proportion, with unerring precision. Countless\ncalculations of the most difficult kind are made instantly and\ncontinually by the divine mind. Thus God's presence everywhere in the\nminutest forms of matter is clearly proved. It is a mathematical\ndemonstration. God is not wearied by the care of worlds and suns, and\nsystems and snow-drifts of stars on the highway of heaven, and takes\njust as perfect notice of atoms and electrons. They who think God is\nunable or unwilling to take care of the minutest division of matter as\nwell as the rolling suns, must have a very diluted idea of God. It is\nnow claimed that the atom, formerly believed to be the smallest\ndivision of matter, consists of 1740 parts. Sir Oliver Lodge says that\nthe structure of an atom is as complex as that of a piano. This latest\nscientific discovery detects the power and wisdom of God, controlling,\nfor ages, this minutest division of matter, undetected by the most\npowerful microscope.\n\nIt staggers one to think of the countless and difficult calculations\nthat are made instantly by the divine mind in every part of the\nuniverse. The path of every snowflake that lazily pursues its tortuous\ncourse, and rests upon the lap of earth, is marked out, not by any law\nor agent, but by God himself. He calculates instantly the cyclone's\npath, the movement of every particle of air, the direction, velocity\nand path of every raindrop. A law could not do it. The wisest man\ncould not do it. But God can do it, with the ease with which the\ntempest carries a feather on its bosom, or the ocean floats a straw!\nEvery second, about 16,000,000 tons of rain and snow fall to the\nearth; and God calculates the paths of the myriad flakes of snow and\ndrops of rain instantly and unerringly.\n\nThe Conservation of Energy and the inter-convertibility of\nforces--light, heat, electricity,--taking place constantly everywhere,\noften on a stupendous scale, require bewildering calculations by an\never-present God. No energy, not even potential energy, can be lost in\nconverting one force into another. It must be computed exactly.\n\nWho but an infinite God could have calculated the enormous potential\nenergy of the nebulous gases, required by contraction to cause the\nprodigious heat of a universe of suns?\n\nThe earth turns over noiselessly every 24 hours, carrying on its\nbosom, at the rate of 1000 mi. an hour, at dizzy heights, a most\ntenuous atmosphere, without a rustle, without the loss of a second in\n1000 years. The earth with its satellite, is traveling around the sun\nat the rate of 18.5 mi. per second--75 times as fast as a cannon\nball,--bearing a load of 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons, and\narriving at a given point in its orbit, on exact time every tropical\nyear. It has arrived so promptly on time following its elliptical\ncourse, at such a rate that the radius vector, a line from the sun to\nthe earth, passes over equal areas in equal times, furnishing every\nmoment an abtruse problem difficult for a scholar to solve. The orbit\nis so vast that it varies from a straight line, but 4 in. in 666 mi.,\nthe distance from Philadelphia to Chicago.\n\nThe sun also, with its family of worlds and their satellites, is\nplunging through space at the rate of 8.5 mi. per second; moreover,\nthere are swarms of huge suns, many larger than ours, moving in\nstraight-lines like a universe on a journey, and countless millions of\nsuns in swiftest flight through the skies, whose orbits and rates of\nmotion must all be calculated and controlled by a mind of amazing\npower and intelligence.\n\nIs not the so-called \"scientist\" either a madman or a fool, who\nbelieves that all this can be accounted for, without the presence of a\nGod of infinite power and intelligence?\n\nWater contracts as the temperature falls. But when within four degrees\nof the freezing point, water expands and ice becomes lighter than\nwater, and floats, and saves all bodies of water from becoming solid\nbodies of ice.\n\nWho can say that God does not intervene, in this case, to save all\nlife? It is a striking proof that God is not absent nor inactive.\n\nGravitation requires the computation of countless millions of the most\ncomplex and difficult problems, every instant, by the divine mind. The\nattraction of all matter for all other matter is in proportion\ndirectly to the mass and inversely to the square of the distance. The\nexact weight of every object is determined by the attraction of the\nearth and every particle thereof, the mountain that may be nearby, the\nelevation and altitude of the place, the attraction of the sun and the\nmoon, and every star in heaven, even though too small to be computed\nby man,--all these are computed precisely by the divine mind. These\ninnumerable calculations prove that God is everywhere.  We are\ncontinually in the immediate awesome presence of an Infinite God.\n\nEvery computation that man ever made, was made long before by a great\nIntelligence, that excels all others combined. How intricate is the\ncalculation of the divine mind, which causes the water of every ocean,\nsea, lake, pond, and vessel, when at rest, to correspond with the\nexact sphericity of the earth. In the face of innumerable and\ndifficult calculations,--proofs of the intense activity of the divine\nmind,--who can be so reckless as to say that God is absent or\ninactive?\n\nNot only does God make endless calculations in executing his will in\nthe material universe, but in the intellectual, moral and spiritual\nworld as well. We can not measure, with any human instruments, the\namount of mental discipline and improvement, resulting from a certain\namount of study. But God calculates unerringly the precise amount of\nmental discipline or improvement earned by every mental exertion. The\namount is in precise proportion to the mental effort. The gain is\ndefinite, exact and unerring, the calculation is instantaneous, and\nbeyond the power of the profoundest mathematician to compute. So also,\nthe effect of every moral act, wish, desire, purpose, intention or\naffection, is instantly computed, and the moral character modified in\nexact proportion to their weight. If a man indulges in vice, he\nbecomes vicious in proportion.  If he commits a crime, he becomes more\ncriminal in nature. Every theft is computed at its proper value.\nEvery good and noble act ennobles the character in proportion to its\nworth. There is a settlement, every instant, and all deeds, wishes,\ndesires, purposes, and affections go into the character, and affect it\nin precise proportion to their weight. Who but an infinite God, can\nkeep all accounts of his innumerable creatures instantaneously, and\nhave them complete, exact and unerring? No man, nor angel, nor \"law,\"\ncould do it. In like manner, every spiritual act, wish, purpose,\nmotive,--all go in to make up the spiritual life of man, in exact\nproportion to their worth.  Not all the mathematicians and scribes in\nthe universe could together solve the problems, that the great\nintellect of the Supreme Ruler is solving every instant of time.\n\nThis theory of an absent or inactive God leaves no place for prayer,\nan almost universal instinct of mankind.  If a blind, deaf, and dumb\nand helpless law is in control, it is useless to pray for help. All\nnations, races and peoples instinctively believe that God hears and\nanswers prayer. This is a scientific fact with which evolutionists\nmust reckon, even if it has a pious or otherwise offensive sound. No\nuse to pray to an inexorable \"law,\" which, like the gods of the\nheathen, can neither see, nor hear, nor taste, nor smell.\n\nHow unscientific then seems the following declaration of Darwin: \"To\nmy mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on\nmatter [How could that be?] by the Creator, that the production and\nextinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should\nhave been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth\nand death of the individual.\" It does not remove the First Great Cause\nfrom active control of the world to call his acts \"secondary causes.\"\n\n\n\n14. CHANCE OR DESIGN?\n\n\nEvolution is the old heathen doctrine of chance. It professes to\neliminate design and a personal active Creator. The theory of natural\nselection allows no design, no intelligence, no interference, no\ncontrol, by the Creator.  He does not interfere even by means of\nlaw. M. M. Metcalf, of Oberlin, O., (shades of Chas. G. Finney!), a\nprominent evolutionist, says, \"The last stand was made by those who\nclaim that supernatural agency intervenes in nature in such a way as\nto modify the natural order of events. When Darwin came to dislodge\nthem from this, their last intrenchment, there was a fight.\" Yes! the\nfight will last while any one tries to substitute chance for the\ncontrol of Almighty God.\n\nThe universe teems with countless evidences of intelligent design of\nthe highest order, whether it is found in the starry heavens, or in\nthe law and order of the atoms hiding from the most powerful\nmicroscope. All things came by chance or by design. They say there is\nno design.  We wonder that the hand that wrote the lie was not\npalsied.  It would be, if the same Creator that filled every muscle,\nnerve, bone, and tissue of the sacrilegious hand, with numberless\nproofs of design, were not a long-suffering and merciful God.\n\nProf. Vernon Kellogg says: \"Darwinism may be defined as a certain\nrational causo-mechanical (hence non-teleologic) explanation of the\norigin of species.\" Translated into plain English, this euphemistic\nexpression means that Darwinism excludes all design and control by a\nCreator. Chance pure and simple. All species originated by chance,\nwithout interference by a supreme Being. This senseless doctrine of\nchance has been condemned by man in every age.\n\nWe can only note a few of the evidences of design, found in\nbewildering numbers in every part of God's great creation.\n\nTHE HUMAN BODY. Can evolutionists imagine how the human body\ncould be crammed fuller of the clearest proofs of the most intelligent\ndesign, indicating a mind of the highest order? Many of the most\nremarkable inventions of man were suggested by the wonderful\ncontrivances found in the human body. Yet they say this marvelous\npiece of ingenuity did not come from the hand of the Creator but was\ndeveloped by blind chance or \"natural laws,\" without a trace of\nintelligent design by the Creator, or by man or beast. The human body\ncan no more be a product of chance or causo-mechanical evolution than\na Hoe printing press, or Milton's Paradise Lost.\n\nOn high medical authority, we are told that there are in the human\nbody 600 muscles, 1000 miles of blood vessels, and 550 arteries\nimportant enough to name. The skin, spread out, would cover 16 square\nfeet. It has 1,500,000 sweat glands which spread out on one surface,\nwould occupy over 10,000 sq. ft., and would cover 5 city lots, 20 x\n100 ft. The lungs are composed of 700,000,000 cells of honey comb, all\nof which we use in breathing,--equal to a flat surface of 2,000 square\nfeet, which would cover a city lot. In 70 years, the heart beats\n2,500,000,000 times, and lifts 500,000 tons of blood. The nervous\nsystem, controlled by the brain has 3,000,000,000,000 nerve cells,\n9,200,000,000 of which are in the cortex or covering of the brain\nalone. In the blood are 30,000,000 white corpuscles, and\n180,000,000,000,000 red ones. Almost 3 pints of saliva are swallowed\nevery day, and the stomach generates daily from 5 to 10 quarts of\ngastric juice, which digests food and destroys germs. Two gallons\ndaily! It is easy also to believe that the \"very hairs of our heads\nare numbered,\"--about 250,000.\n\nYet many an upstart, with thousands of the most marvelous contrivances\nin his own body, is ready to shout that there is no God and no design,\nor that there has been no interference since creation, and that our\nbodies have reached the dizzy heights of perfection, without\nintelligence, purpose or design. Absurd in the highest degree!  \"We\nare fearfully and wonderfully made.\"\n\nTHE EYE. Darwin says, \"To suppose that the eye with all its\ninimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different\ndistances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the\ncorrection of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been\nformed by natural selection, _seems, I frankly confess absurd in the\nhighest degree_.\"  (Italics ours). After admitting that it \"seems\nabsurd in the highest degree,\" he proceeds, as if it were certainly\ntrue. Darwin has been admired for his candor, but not for his\nconsistency. After admitting that an objection is insuperable, he goes\non as if it had little or no weight.  And many of his followers take\nthe same unscientific attitude.  They try to establish their theory in\nspite of overwhelming arguments.\n\n\"Reason tells me,\" he says, \"that if numerous gradations from a simple\nand imperfect eye, to one complex and perfect, can be shown to exist,\nsuch gradation being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the\ncase\" (certainly?), \"if further,\" he continues, \"the eye varies and\nthe variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case\" (most\nmodern evolutionists say certainly _not_ the case; what, if\nvariations are unfavorable?); \"And if such variations should be\nuseful, (what if not useful?) to any animal under changing conditions\nof life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex\neye _could_ be formed by natural selection, _though insuperable\nto the imagination_ (Italics ours) should not be considered as\nsubversive of the theory\"!! Darwin undertakes a task far too great for\nhis mighty genius. \"Believing that a perfect and complex eye could be\nformed\" is many moral leagues from proving that it was so formed. We\nmust have stronger proof than sufficient to lead us to believe that\nsuch an eye could possibly be so formed. All proof is exhausted in the\nstruggle to prove the possibility of the formation of so marvelous an\neye, to say nothing of the probability, much less the certainty\nrequired by science.  We hold evolutionists to the necessity of\nproving that the eye was _certainly_ so formed. We demand\nit. Otherwise, we shall certainly \"consider it subversive of the\ntheory.\"  And if acquired by one species, how could it benefit another\nspecies? But we must contest the claim that the wonderful eye of man\nand animals _could_ have been formed by evolution. Darwin's whole\ntheory aims to account for all creation, with its super-abundant\nevidences of design, by natural selection, which works without design\nand without intelligence. The theory is founded upon the monstrous\nassumption that unintelligent animals and plants, can, by aimless\neffort arrive at such perfection as the organs of the human body,\nexceeding anything in mechanical contrivance, invented to date by the\ngenius of man. Indeed, that wonderful invention of the telescope is\nbut a poor imitation of the eye, and does not begin to equal it in\nmarvelous design. Who would say that the telescope might have been\nconstructed by chance, or the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, or by\nnatural selection, or any other attempted method of blotting out the\ngreat intelligent Designer of the universe? It not only \"_seems_\nabsurd in the highest degree,\" but certainly _is_, and is fatal\nto the theory.\n\nThe eye is so wonderful in its powers, and delicate adjustments, that\nwe stand amazed at the evidences of design, and at the wisdom of the\nMaker of the eye, far exceeding the highest inventive genius of\nman. To say that this is the result of \"natural selection,\" is absurd\nand ridiculous.  Evolution eliminates design, mind, and an active and\never present God, and substitutes blind chance or natural selection,\ndubs it \"science\" and asks the world to believe it!\n\nAccording to the evolution theory, the gain in the mechanism of the\neye causes its possessors to survive, and others to die. Is that true?\nAre there not many species that survive, whose eyes are less perfect\nthan the eye of man? Indeed, it is claimed that many animals have eyes\nsuperior to man. If so, why did man survive and become the dominant\nspecies, with eyes less perfect? The compound eyes of some species are\nsuperior in some respects, as every one knows, who has ever tried to\nslip up on a fly. A scientist says that fleas have such perfect vision\nthat the darkness under the bed clothes is to them a glaring light.\n\nDarwin makes a fatal admission, when he says, \"To arrive, however, at\na conclusion regarding the formation of the eye with all its marvelous\nyet not absolutely perfect characters, it is indispensable that the\nreason should conquer the imagination; But I _have felt the\ndifficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to\nextend the principle of natural selection to so startling a\nlength_.\"  (Italics ours). No wonder the reason and judgment of\nmankind revolts against such a theory and that so many evolutionists\nthemselves reject it.\n\nThree or four per cent. of the population are color blind--\"red-blind\"\n--and are not able to distinguish the color of the green leaves from\nthat of the red ripe cherries.  Can it be possible that the eye\nbecomes more perfect, because those who had less perfect eyes\nperished, and only those who could recognize colors survive until\ncolor blindness is finally eliminated? Is such a doctrine scientific?\nIs it more reasonable to believe it than to believe that an infinitely\nwise and powerful God created this organ of marvelous value and\nbeauty? Of course, the ability to recognize color is only one of the\nmany perfections of the eye.\n\nEvolution is made so much more incredible, because it teaches that\nevery permanent improvement in the eye is made at the expense of\nmultitudes of individuals that perished because of the lack of the\nimprovement. The defect perished only because all individuals\nafflicted with it perished. Is this true?\n\nThe bureau of education of the U.S. government reports that, of\n_22,000,000_ school children examined, 5,000,000 have defective\neyes; 1,000,000, defective hearing; 1,000,000 have active\ntuberculosis; 250,000, heart trouble; 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 are\nunderfed; total, 12,250,000,--more than half. Must all these\ndefectives perish in order that man may reach perfection? Less than\nhalf are the \"fittest\" and they only could survive.\n\nLOCATION OF ORGANS. But if the evolutionist _could_\nconvince the thoughtful student that the marvelous eye could have been\nso formed, by blind chance or natural selection, how could he account\nfor the advantageous location of the eye and other organs? While we\ncan not well name a fraction small enough to express the mathematical\nprobability of the formation of the eye, the ear, and other organs of\nthe body, we easily can compute the fraction of the probability of\ntheir location, though very small. In the passage quoted from Darwin,\nhe begins with the simple eye, but does not say how the eye\noriginated. Hon.  William J. Bryan in his book, \"In His Image,\" p. 97,\nsays, \"But how does the evolutionist explain the eye, when he leaves\nGod out? Here is the only guess that I have seen,--if you find any\nothers, I shall be glad to know of them, as I am collecting the\nguesses of the evolutionists.  The evolutionist guesses that there was\na time when eyes were unknown--that is a necessary part of the\nhypothesis.  And since the eye is a universal possession, among living\nthings, the evolutionist guesses that it came into being,--not by\ndesign or act of God--I will give you the guess,--a piece of pigment,\nor as some say, a freckle, appeared upon the skin of an animal that\nhad no eyes. This piece of pigment or freckle converged the rays of\nthe sun upon that spot, and when the little animal felt the heat on\nthat spot, it turned the spot to the sun to get more heat. This\nincreased heat irritated the skin,--so the evolutionists guess--and a\nnerve came there and out of the nerve came the eye. Can you beat it?\nBut this only accounts for one eye; there must have been another piece\nof pigment or freckle soon afterward, and just in the right place in\norder to give the animal two eyes.\"\n\nNow assuming, what seems an utter impossibility, that the wonderful\nmechanism of the eye can be accounted for by chance or natural\nselection (another name for chance since design is excluded), how can\nwe account for the _location_ of the eyes, and, in fact, of all\nthe other organs of the body? We can easily calculate the mathematical\nprobability on the basis of natural selection. There are from 2500 to\n3500 square inches of surface to the human body, a space easily 3000\ntimes the space occupied by an eye.  The eye, by the laws of\nprobability, is just as likely to be located any where else, and has\none chance out of 3000 to be located where it is. But out, of our\nabundant margin, we will concede the chance to be one out of 1000, and\nhence its mathematical probability is .001. For mathematical\nprobability includes possibility and even improbability.  The compound\nprobability of two things happening together is ascertained by\nmultiplying together their fractions of probability. Now the\nprobability of the location of the second eye where it is, also is\n.001. And the compound probability of the location of both eyes where\nthey are, is .001 x .001 or .000,001. In like manner, the probability\nof the location of each ear where it is, is .001, and of the two ears\n.000,001. The compound probability of the location of two eyes and two\nears where they are, is .000001 x .000001 or .000,000,000,001. The two\neyes and two ears have but one chance out of a trillion or a million\nmillion to be located where they are. The location of the mouth, the\nnose, and every organ of the body diminishes this probability a\nthousand fold. We are speaking mildly when we say that this\ncalculation proves that the evolution of the body, by chance or\nnatural selection, has not one chance in a million to be true. So\nruthlessly does the pure and reliable science of mathematics shatter\nthe theory of evolution, which so called scientists claim is as firmly\nestablished as the law of gravitation.\n\nConcerning the wild guess of the development of the legs, we again\nquote from Mr. Bryan, \"In His Image,\" p. 98: \"And according to the\nevolutionist, there was a time when animals had no legs, and so the\nlegs came by accident. How? Well, the guess is that a little animal\nwas wiggling along on its belly one day, when it discovered a wart--it\njust happened so,--and it was in the right place to be used to aid it\nin locomotion; so, it came to depend upon the wart, and use finally\ndeveloped it into a leg. And then another wart, and another leg, at\nthe proper time--by accident--and accidentally in the proper place. Is\nit not astonishing that any person, intelligent enough to teach\nschool, would talk such tommyrot to students, and look serious while\ndoing so?\"\n\nSome one has counted that Darwin has used phrases of doubt, like \"We\nmay well suppose,\" 800 times in his two principal works. The whole\ntheory is built up on guesses and suppositions. \"Let us suppose\" that\neach guess is 95 per cent certain, which is far higher than the\naverage or any. The compound probability would equal .95 raised to the\n800th power which would be .000,000,000,000,000,006,281 which means\nthere are 6 chances out of a quintillion that evolution is true. Since\nnot all of these 800 suppositions are dependent upon each other, we\nare willing to multiply this result by 10,000,000,000 which still\nshows that the theory has less than one chance in a million to be\ntrue. Darwin himself says, \"The belief that an organ so perfect as the\neye could have been formed by natural selection, is more than enough\nto STAGGER ANY ONE.\" Yet he and his followers refuse to be\n\"staggered,\" and proceed to argue as if this unanswerable objection\nhad little or no weight. _Any hypothesis is weakened or damaged by\nevery support that is an uncertain guess_. Gravitation has no such\nsupport.\n\nMr. Alfred W. McCann, in his great volume \"God or Gorilla,\" shows that\nH. G. Wells, the novelist _alias_ historian(?), in his \"Outline\nof History,\" uses 103 pages to show man's descent from an ape-like\nancestry, and employs 96 expressions of doubt or uncertainty, such as\n\"probably,\" \"perhaps,\" \"possibly,\" etc. He does not hesitate to\nendorse the wildest guesses of the evolutionists, and sits upon the\ntop of this pyramid of doubt, and proclaims, _ex cathedra_,\napparently without a blush, of our ancestors: \"It was half-ape,\nhalf-monkey [elsewhere, he says the lemur was our ancestor]. It\nclambered about the trees and ran, and probably ran well, on its hind\nlegs upon the ground. It was small brained by our present standards,\nbut it had clever hands with which it handled fruit and beat nuts upon\nthe rocks, and perhaps caught up sticks and stones to smite its\nfellows. IT WAS OUR ANCESTOR.\"!!!\n\nAnd he does not hesitate to give a picture of our ancestor drawn by an\nartist 500,000 years after its death.  Yet this book so dangerous, so\nanti-christian, and so untruthful concerning the origin of man, is\nrecommended by careless librarians, by scholars, and even by\nChristians.  It will take a long time to erase from the mind of the\nyouth, the false teachings of this book. It is one of the most\ncunningly devised plans ever attempted to teach infidelity and atheism\nin the name of history.\n\nPLANS FOR MAN PROVE DESIGN. All nature is crowded with evidence\nthat God intended to create man. He made great preparation for his\ncoming. He provided many things useful to man but to no other\nspecies. Veins of coal, almost innumerable--the canned sunshine of\npast ages--, are placed near the earth's surface, accessible for man,\nwhen needed for his use. Of no value whatever to any other species,\nbecause they can not make or replenish a fire. A colored preacher did\nnot miss the mark, when he said, \"God stored his coal in his great big\ncellar for the use of man.\" The man who fills his own cellar with\nprovisions for the winter exhibits no more foresight or design.\n\nThe oil and gas were also evidently stored away in the earth for the\nuse of man. It is worth nothing to animals. Over 41,000,000,000\ngallons of oil were consumed in the U.S. in 1924.\n\nAll the other minerals likewise were stored in the earth for the use\nof man alone,--iron, copper, gold, silver, all the valuable\nminerals,--knowing that man would make use of them. The most precious\nand most useful minerals are of no value whatever to any species of\nanimals. God foresaw the marvelous inventions of the present and the\nfuture, and provided the means ages ahead of time. The universe is\ncrowded so full of design, that there is no room for chance or natural\nselection.\n\n\n\n15. EVOLUTION ATHEISTIC\n\n\nEvolution harmonizes with atheism and kindred false theories. This\nraises a presumption against its truth, as falsehood does not agree\nwith the truth. It is reconcilable with infidelity and atheism, but\nnot with Christianity.  Many, like Prof. Coulter, of the Chicago\nUniversity, endeavor to show that evolution is reconcilable with\n_religion_--and he does show that it harmonizes with the religion\nof deism or infidelity. No one doubts that evolution harmonizes with\natheism or the religion of Thomas Paine.  But why should we be anxious\nto reconcile it with Christianity, when there is so little truth to\nsupport it?\n\nMany evolutionists are atheists. Some believe in the eternity of\nmatter. This can not be. Both mind and matter can not be eternal. Mind\ncontrols matter; and not matter, mind. Hence the mind of God created\nmatter.\n\nSome believe the universe came into being by its own power, though\nthat can not be. Power or force cannot create itself. It must be\nattached directly or indirectly to a person. No force can be\ndisconnected from its cause. Detached force is unthinkable. All force\nin the universe can be traced to God. Much of the physical power of\nthe earth can be traced to the sun,--storms, cataracts, steam,\nelectricity,--and the sun gets its power from God. Gravitation,\nextensive as the universe, is but the power of God in each case.\n\nThe total force in the universe _is_ beyond calculation.  It is a\npart of the power of Almighty God. It approaches infinity. All heat is\nconvertible into power, and power into heat. Heat, when converted into\npower, moves the mighty engines. The power of Niagara may be converted\ninto heat and light. The sun had lifted the waters of the whole\nNiagara River, and the lakes far above the Falls. Its power is\nenormous. It lifts up over 1,000,000,000,000 tons of water to the\nclouds every day,--more than all the rivers and streams pour into the\nseas. The sun equals in size a pile of more than a million worlds like\nours. Every square yard of surface of this enormous sphere, has enough\nheat to push a great liner across the sea,--as much power as in many\ntons of coal. The amount of heat in the surface of the sun, consisting\nof more than 2,284,000,000,000 sq. mi., can hardly be imagined. The\nheat of one sq. mi. (3,097,600 sq. yds.)  would drive 3,000,000 ships\nacross the sea,--150 times as many as are afloat. More than\n2,200,000,000 times as much heat as the earth receives, goes out into\nspace. And this enormous amount of heat is but a poor fraction of the\nheat of 400,000,000 suns, few of which are so small as ours.\n\nA single star, Betelguese, has recently been computed to be\n215,000,000 mi. in diameter, and therefore larger than 10,000,000 suns\nlike ours. A still more recent computation shows stars even\nlarger. Antares is 390,000,000 mi. in diameter, equal, to 91,125,000\nsuns, or 136,687,500,000,000 worlds. If our sun were in the centre of\nthis sun, it would extend beyond the orbit of Mars. Alpha Hercules is\n300,000,000 mi. in diameter. Some stars are so far away that it takes\nlight 60,000 years to reach us, at the rate of 186,000 mi. in a\nsecond. Some say there are 400,000,000 enormous suns. Compute, if you\ncan, the sum total of the power causing the light and heat, and the\npower of gravitation controlling these vast swarms of stars. All this\npower is the power of God, and a weak fraction of the total. This\npower could not originate itself. It could not grow. It could not come\nby evolution. It could not come by chance.\n\nThe doctrine of the Conservation of Force, accepted by scientists,\nproves that no part of force can be lost. A God of infinite power is\nrequired to create, maintain and control this vast universe. Force can\nno more create itself than matter. God must create and preserve both.\nIt takes almighty power to maintain the universe in existence, as well\nas to create it.\n\nIf atheism be true, then, if there was even one germ to start with, as\nmost admit, it must have created itself, unless the absurd claim that\nit came from another world, riding on a meteorite, be entertained. If\nsuch a foolish assumption were possible, it would require a God to\ncreate it in another world.\n\n\"The fool hath said in his heart, 'No God'.\" Some translators would\nsupply the words omitted by the Hebrew, and make it read: \"The fool\nhath said in his heart, '_There is_ no God'.\" Others, \"The fool\nhath said in his heart, '_I wish there were_ no God'.\" It is hard\nto tell which is the bigger fool, the man who refuses to see the\ncountless evidences of design, proving His existence; or the man who\nrefuses to see the terrible wreck of the great universe, and the awful\nchaos that would result if there were no God. We can imagine only one\ngreater fool than either: The man who thinks he can get the world to\nbelieve, under cover of evolution, that there is no God, and that all\nthings were evolved by chance, even though it be camouflaged by the\nterms \"natural selection\" or \"natural law.\"\n\nAtheism implies spontaneous generation, which is entirely without\nproof. Indeed, if spontaneous generation were possible at the\nbeginning of life, it is possible now, and has been possible during\nall the ages. But no proof of it has been given. On the contrary, all\nefforts to secure, by chemistry, the lowest forms of life from dead\nmatter have been without avail. Dr. Leib, of Chicago University, made\nearnest efforts to do so. He failed utterly.  If nature, aided by the\ngenius of man, can not now produce the lowest forms of life from\nmatter, how could it ever have been done? Prof. Huxley filled jars\nwith sterilized water, and placed in it sterilized vegetation, and\nsealed them up, and after 30 years, no life was seen, disproving\nspontaneous generation. Pasteur proved that, if milk were sterilized,\nthere would be no development of life by spontaneous generation. This\ndiscovery was of immense practical value, making milk safe to use.\nProf. Tyndall, the distinguished physicist, said: \"If matter is what\nthe world believes it to be, materialism, spontaneous generation, and\nevolution, or development, are absurdities too monstrous to be\nentertained by any sane mind.\" Dr. Clark Maxwell, another\ndistinguished physicist, says, \"I have examined all [theories of\nevolution] and have found that every one must have a God to make it\nwork.\" _L'Univers_ says: \"When hypotheses tend to nothing less\nthan the shutting out of God from the thoughts and hearts of men, and\nthe diffusion of the leprosy of materialism, the savant who invents\nand propagates them is either a criminal or a fool.\" Even Darwin seems\nto be conscious of a designing mind when he says, \"It is difficult to\navoid personifying the word Nature.  But I mean by nature only the\naggregate action and product of many natural laws.\" A futile effort to\nexclude God. Who made these laws?\n\nCan a theory that is consistent with false theories, like chance and\natheism be true? Truth is consistent with truth, but not with\nfalsehood. We can judge a theory by the company it keeps. Evolution\nnaturally affiliates with false theories rather than with the\ntruth. It favors infidelity and atheism. A theory in perfect harmony\nwith manifest error, raises a presumption against its truth.\nEvolution seems to have a natural attraction for erroneous hypotheses\nand manifests the closest kinship with impossible theories. This is\nnot a mark of a true theory.\n\nSo baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven\nhypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and\natheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa., sent a\nquestionaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teaching\nsciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more than\none-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of the\nsoul,--beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world. So\npernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of\nthe professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and\natheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen. And while we\nare happy in the conviction that the great majority of professors and\nteachers of other subjects are Christians, yet one or two atheists or\ninfidels are sufficient to make havoc of the faith of many, in a great\ncollege or university.\n\nA doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the well\nnigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not be\ntrue. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels and\natheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation. A great\nresponsibility rests upon the authorities who employ such teachers.\n\nThe answers of the students in seven large representative colleges and\nuniversities to Prof. Leuba's questionaire, show that while only 15%\nof the Freshmen have abandoned the Christian religion, 30% of the\nJuniors and over 40% of the Seniors have abandoned the Christian\nfaith. Note the steady and rapid growth of infidelity and atheism as a\nresult of this pernicious theory.\n\nWill Christian parents patronize or support or endow institutions that\ngive an education that is worse than worthless? What the colleges\nteach today the world will believe tomorrow.\n\nAtheism, under its own name, has never had many to embrace it. Its\nonly hope is to be tolerated and believed under some other name. In\nRussia, no man is allowed to belong to the ruling (Communist) party\nunless he is an atheist. It will be a sorry world when \"scientific\"\natheism wins, under the name of evolution.\n\nNo one has a moral right to believe what is false, much less to teach\nit, under the specious plea of freedom of thought.\n\nIt is the privilege and duty of parents to send their children to\ninstitutions that are safe.\n\nNathan Leopold, Jr., and Richard Loeb kidnapped and cruelly murdered\nRobert Franks. Both were brilliant scholars and atheists. Both\ngraduates of universities, though minors, and both were taking a\npost-graduate course in the University of Chicago. It is asserted and\nwidely believed that they were encouraged in their atheistic belief by\nthe teaching of evolution and modernism, and were thus prepared to\ncommit a crime that shocked the world.\n\nMost of the writers who advocated evolution became atheists or\ninfidels; most of the professors who teach it, believe neither in God\nnor the immortality of the soul; and the number of students discarding\nChristianity rose from 15% in the Freshman year to 40% in the\nSenior. What more proof is needed?\n\n\n\n16. BRUTE DESCENT IMPOSSIBLE\n\n\nAccording to Prof. R. S. Lull and other evolutionists, \"The skull of\nthe pithecanthropus is characterized by a limited capacity of about\ntwo-thirds that of a man.\" Assuming that this skull is that of a\nnormal creature of that age, as is done in all the arguments of \"our\nfriends, the enemy,\" then the pithecanthropus must have lived\n20,000,000 years ago, one-third the period assigned to life.  They\nclaim the pithecanthropus lived 750,000 years ago; later the guess is\nreduced to 375,000. Does any one in his senses believe that an\nape-human animal developed one-third of the normal human brain in\n375,000 or 750,000 years, when it took 59,250,000 years to develop\ntwo-thirds of the brain? If one-third of the normal brain developed in\nthe last 750,000 years, the rate of development must have been 39.5\ntimes as great as in the preceding 59,250,000 years. If one-third\ndeveloped in the last 375,000 years, the rate of development must have\nbeen 78 times as rapid as in the preceding 59,625,000 years. This is\nincredible. If life began 500,000,000 years ago, and one-third the\nbrain developed in the last 750,000 years, the rate must have been 332\ntimes as rapid as in the preceding 499,250,000 years; and 666 times as\nrapid in 375,000 years as in the preceding 499,625,000 years. All\nthese guesses are clearly impossible.\n\nBut the agile evolutionist may try to escape the death sentence of\nmathematics and the condemnation of reason, by saying that the brain\ndeveloped more rapidly than the rest of the body. But he is estopped\nfrom that claim, by the statement of this same Prof. R. S. Lull: \"The\nbrain, especially the type of brain found in the higher human races,\nmust have been _very_ slow of development.\" If so, the pithecanthropus\nmust have lived more than 20,000,000 years ago! So swiftly does\ninexorable mathematics upset this reckless theory.\n\nThis calculation has been made upon the basis of the estimate of\n60,000,000 years since life began, taken from Prof. H. H. Newman in\n\"Readings in Evolution,\" p. 68.  But, seeing that even this great\nestimate of the period of life is not sufficient for evolution, in a\nprivate letter to the writer, Prof. Newman raises his guess to\n500,000,000 years. In that case, the pithecanthropus must have lived\none-third of 500,000,000, or 166,666,666 years ago.  And, if we are\nreckless enough to admit the \"moderate estimate\" of 1,000,000,000\nyears, gravely suggested by Prof. Russell, of Princeton University, it\nmust have lived 333,333,333 years ago. These reckless estimates seem\nremoved, by the whole diameter of reason, from even a respectable\nguess. Every new guess seems to make their case more hopeless. And any\nguess that they can make, out of harmony with the Scripture statement,\ncan be disproved by cold mathematics. In like manner, if the Piltdown\nman had the estimated brain capacity of 1070 c.c., instead of the\nnormal 1500 c.c., this fabricated creature must have lived about\n17,200,000 years ago, if life began 60,000,000 years ago; and\n143,333,333 years ago, if life began 500,000,000 years ago; (c.c. =\ncubic centimeters).\n\nProf. Schaaffhausen, the discoverer, estimated the capacity of the\nNeanderthal man at 1033 c.c. Then he must have lived 18,680,000 years\nago, if we accept the 60,000,000 year period; and 311,333,333 years\nago, if we accept Prof. Russell's guess of 1,000,000,000 years.\n\nAnd in all these long ages, fragments of only four skeletons of very\ndoubtful character have been found, and upon this flimsy proof, the\nyouth of our land are expected by self-styled \"scientists\" to believe\nit, even though it leads them into infidelity and atheism, and causes\nthe loss of their souls.\n\nLet us take another view. Let us assume that the pithecanthropus\nreally lived 750,000 years ago, as claimed, which is 1.25% of\n60,000,000 years. Therefore, its brain capacity then should have been\n98.75% normal, or 1481.25 c.c. or 18.75 c.c. less than the normal 1500\nc.c. Also 750,000 years is only .15% of 500,000,000 years; hence in\nthat case, the brain should have been 99.85% normal, or 1497.75\nc.c. In either case, the intelligence must have excelled that of many\nnations and races. All these calculations prove positively that no\nsuch creatures as these four alleged ape-men ever could have lived in\nthe age assigned to them; or, if so, that none could have had, at that\ntime, the low brain capacity claimed. Q. E. D.\n\nIs it not plain that for the last 2,000,000 years out of 60,000,000\nyears, the developing human race must have been over 29/30 or 96 2/3%\nnormal, in intelligence, morality, and spirituality? This is greater\nthan that of many peoples today. With this high degree of\nintelligence, man was capable of great inventions and discoveries.\nNot a single monument remains. We would expect some great monument\nlike the pyramids of Egypt. A race with such advancement, for so many\nyears would have been able to reach the heights of invention,\ndiscovery, and learning of the present age. Not a whit of evidence\ncomes down to us.\n\nIf 2,000,000 years ago, man had the same skull capacity as the ape,\n600 c.c., he has gained 900 c.c. in 2,000,000 years, and only 600\nc.c. in 58,000,000 years. His improvement in the last 2,000,000 years,\nmust have been 43.5 times as rapid as during the preceding 58,000,000\nyears; or 373.5 times as rapid as during the preceding 498,000,000\nyears. How was that possible?\n\n\n\n17. EIGHT IMPASSABLE GULFS\n\n\nThe evolution theory, stretching from matter to man, is impossible,\nbecause of many impassable gulfs. Some of these impassable gulfs\nare:--\n\n1. Between the living and non-living or dead matter;\n2. Between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms;\n3. Between the invertebrates and the vertebrates;\n4. Between marine animals and amphibians;\n5. Between amphibians and reptiles;\n6. Between reptiles and birds;\n7. Between reptiles and mammals;\n8. Between mammals and the human body;\n9. Between soulless simians and the soul of man, bearing the image of\n   God.\n\nThere is not a scrap of evidence that these gulfs have ever been\ncrossed. In the scheme, the material must become living by spontaneous\ngeneration; some plants must become invertebrate animals; some\ninvertebrates must become vertebrates; some marine animals must become\namphibians; some amphibians must become reptiles; some reptiles must\nbecome mammals; some mammals must become humans; some senseless,\nsoulless simians must acquire a soul and become spiritual enough to\nbear the image of God.\n\nThere is no convincing proof that any of these great and incredible\nadvances were ever made. If we estimate the probability of each\ntransmutation at 10%, which is too high, then the probability that all\nthese changes up to man were made is .1 raised to the 8th\npower, .00000001.  Therefore, there is not more than one chance out of\n100,000,000 that these 8 changes were made. And if we estimate the\nprobability of each great change at .001, which is doubtless still too\nhigh, the probability that man took these 8 great steps of evolution\nis one out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or a million,\nmillion, million, million. If we estimate the probability of each\nchange even at 60%, which is far above all reason, the probability of\nman's evolution through these 8 changes is only 1 out of 60, which\nmarks an improbability close to an impossibility. The highest estimate\nwe can reasonably make, destroys all hope that man or even any other\nspecies could have come by evolution. Few persons realize how\nimprobable an event is made which depends upon a number of\npossibilities or even probabilities, until calculated by the rule of\nCompound Mathematical Probability.\n\nImagine the Copernican or the gravitation theory depending on a number\nof possibilities or probabilities! No true theory is built on such an\nuncertain foundation.\n\nBut, if the evolutionists could prove that 7 out of 8 of the great\nchanges certainly did occur, but failed to prove the 8th, they would\nlose their case. But they have failed in all. They must prove all to\nwin. There is not the slightest probability that any one of these\nchanges ever occurred. Hence, the evolution of man from this long line\nof alleged ancestors is an absolute impossibility. Q. E. D.\n\nNone of these changes is _now_ occurring. There is no spontaneous\ngeneration now. Darwin himself said that spontaneous generation in the\npast was \"absolutely inconceivable.\"  No reptiles are becoming\nmammals, none becoming birds, no apes or monkeys are becoming men. No\nspecies is now transmuted into another, no new species arises. Is not\nthis proof enough that such great changes never occurred?\n\nMoreover, if dead matter caused one living germ, why did it not cause\nmore? If some reptiles developed into mammals, and birds, why not all?\nIf one family of simians became human, why not others? Why not at\nleast become anthropoids? Why did all other members of the simian\nfamily not become at least part human?  Why have they remained\nstationary?\n\nBesides, we have with us yet the invertebrates that have not yet\nbecome vertebrates; marine animals that have not become amphibians;\namphibians that have not become reptiles; reptiles that have become\nneither mammals nor birds, and a multitude of simians that have not\nbecome human, and are not moving toward man either in bodily form or\nintelligence or spirituality. We have the one-celled amoeba, the\nmicroscopic animals, and the lowest forms of animal life. If the great\nlaw of progress and advancement to higher forms has prevailed for so\nmany million years, there should be none but the highest species. All\nshould have reached the status of human beings and there should be\nnone of the lower forms of life which are so abundant. Changes so\nradical and vast, stretching through so many ages, would require\nmillions of connecting links. If reptiles became hairy mammals, we\nwould expect fossils of thousands, if not millions, in the transition\nstate. If some reptiles were changed into the 12,000 species of birds,\nwe would expect countless fossils, part reptile, part bird. Only one\nis claimed, the arch\u00e6opteryx (ancient bird), two specimens of which\nare known, which had a feathered tail, and which is only a slight\nmodification of other birds. Many other birds have departed farther\nfrom the normal. There should be millions of fossils in the transition\nstate if the theory were true. We have proven elsewhere that there is\nno credible evidence of links connecting man with the monkey family.\nThere would have been many millions. We have shown, at length, that\nsome of these great changes, especially the Evolution of man from the\nbrute, could never have occurred.  No one of these nine great advances\nwas ever made, but it will suffice to examine now, as examples, two\nalleged great changes, reptiles into mammals, and reptiles into birds.\n\n1. Evolutionists say that mammals are descended from some reptiles,\nunknown, of course, and birds from others, also unknown. Mammals\ndiffer from reptiles in having breasts (Latin, mammae), a four\nchambered heart instead of three, a coat of hair or fur or wool, and a\nwomb for the young. The temperature of the blood of reptiles is as low\nas 60 and even 40 degrees, since the temperature of the blood is about\nthe same as the environment, sometimes approaching the freezing point.\nBut mammals have a temperature approaching 100\u00b0. We are to believe\nthat one progressive branch of reptiles, which passed through the\nsieve of natural selection, during the Permian Ice Age, was capable of\nbeing adapted to the colder climate. But this mighty chasm between\nreptiles and mammals was crossed unaided by any external interference,\nunaided by God; then the mammals groped their way, without\nintelligence or design, up to man! The difficulties are too great to\nsatisfy the serious student. No satisfactory explanation has been\ngiven. No fossils, part reptile, part mammal, have been found. We\nwould naturally expect millions of them. Evidently none ever\nexisted. How could such radical changes be brought about? What caused\nthe development of hair, fur and wool? The change in the heart, and\nthe temperature, the formation of the mammae and of the womb?  There\nis no evidence of such change. But it is necessary to the scheme.\n\n2. Some reptiles became birds, they say; whether a pair for each of\nthe 12,000 species of birds or one pair for all, we can not learn. For\nnobody knows. They would like for us to believe that these\ncold-blooded reptiles with a temperature of 40 to 60 degrees became\nbirds with a temperature as high as 107; that wings and feathers were\ndeveloped, which must have been perfectly useless through the long\nages during which they were developing; that the wonderful\ncontrivances in the wings and feathers were made by senseless reptiles\nthat did not know what they were doing. Reptiles have a\nthree-chambered heart, making them cold-blooded. Birds have a\nfour-chambered heart, and a temperature higher than that of\nman. Reptiles left their eggs to hatch in the sun.  Birds, by a fine\ninstinct, built their nests with care. Some reptiles have 4 feet, some\n2, some none. All birds have two feet. The bird's structure is so well\nsuited for flight and shows the marks of design so clearly, that the\nclumsy aeroplane is but a poor imitation. Yet to link the 12,000\nspecies of birds to their unknown reptilian ancestors, they show us\ntwo fossils of the arch\u00e6opteryx, as the sum total of the evidence\nshowing the transition from reptiles to birds. The fossil varies\nslightly but not essentially from other birds. It has a feathered\ntail, some teeth and claws. It is probably not a connecting link at\nall, and if it were, we would expect a million fossils of connecting\nlinks. All these nine transmutations are devoid of a single sure\nconnecting link, when we would expect millions in every case. These\nfacts prove that evolution is a delusion and an absurdity.\n\n\n\n18. ANCESTRAL APES AND MONKEYS\n\n\nMany have taught that man was descended from an ape or\nmonkey. Evolutionists, ashamed of a doctrine so repugnant to all\nreason and so revolting to mankind, vainly imagine they can escape the\nodium of such a view, by declaring that man is not descended from an\nape or monkey, but that all the primates including all monkeys, apes,\nand man, sprang from a common ancestor. Of this alleged ancestor\n_not a single fossil remains_. Dr. Chapin, Social Evolution, page\n39, says: \"When the doctrine of the descent of man was first advanced,\nsuperficial and popular writers immediately jumped at the conclusion\nthat naturalists believed that man was descended from the\nmonkey. This, of course, is quite absurd, as man obviously could not\nbe descended from a form of life now living. The ape and the monkey\nfamily, together with man are probably (?) descended from some\ngeneralized ape-like form long since perished from the earth.\" Suppose\nthis absurd and unsupported guess to be correct.  Then the gorillas,\nchimpanzees, gibbons, orang-outangs and other apes; the baboons and\nother monkeys; and the lemurs and man were brothers and sisters, or\notherwise closely related, and all were descended immediately or\nnearly so from a common ancestor _lower than any_. Where is the\ncomfort or gain? Moreover, all the members of this primate family must\nhave inter-breeded for ages, until, according to the theory, they\nbecame distinct species. Therefore, the ancestors of man, for ages,\nmust have been descended from all these members of the primate family,\nand are thus the offspring of _all_ these repulsive brutes, and\nthe blood of them all is in our veins! In attempting to rescue us from\nthe ape as our ancestor, they have shown that we are descendants of\nthe whole monkey family and every species of ape and of many of their\nmore disreputable relatives also. Great is evolution!\n\nIt certainly would be impossible for one single pair to have become\nthe ancestors of the human race, without mixing and interbreeding with\ntheir kindred primates.  Where are the descendants of these mongrel\nbreeds, part monkey and part man? We would expect all gradations of\nmixed animals from monkey to man. \"Two or three millions of years ago\nan enormous family of monkeys spread over Europe, Asia and Africa.\"\nAll related, many our ancestors.\n\nWhy did not some other species of the primates equal or excel man or\nadvance part way between man and the brute? Why are they not now\nbecoming human? It is plain to the sincere student that the evolution\nof man from the brute is only the product of the imagination of those\nwho wish to deny special creation and exclude God from his universe.\n\nThe slight external resemblance between man and the ape family is more\nthan offset by structural differences which deny kinship. Alfred\nMcCann in his great book \"God--or Gorilla\" says, p. 24, \"Man has 12\npairs of ribs; the gibbon and chimpanzee, 13; man has 12 dorsal\nvertebrae; the chimpanzee and gorilla, 13; the gibbon, 14. The gorilla\nhas massive spines on the cervical vertebrae above the scapula\"; and,\nlike the other quadrumana (4-handed animals) has an opposable thumb on\nthe hind foot.  There are wide differences in the shape of the skull,\nthorax, femur, and even the liver. The skeleton of the brutes is much\nmore massive. On the tips of the fingers and thumbs of the human hand\nare lines arranged in whorls, for identification. In monkeys, the\nlines are parallel on the finger tips, but whorls on the palm. Is it\npossible that man and such brutes came from the same parents?\n\n\n\n19. A STAGGERING SPECULATION\n\n\nThe theory that all plants and animals have descended from one\nprimordial germ, is staggering to the mind. If so, how was it? Did\nthis original germ split in two, like some disease germs, one of them\nthe beginning of plant life, and the other the head of all animal\nlife? Or, did vegetation only, grow from this first germ for ages, and\nthen some of it turn into species of animals? As if the guess were\nworthy of attention, some are ready to assert that early vegetation\nAlgae turned into animals. Did plants become animals somewhere along\nthe way? Or did animals, somewhere along the way, turn into plants?\nHow long did they interbreed before the gap became too wide? Where are\nthe descendants of the union between plants and animals? If animals\nwere first developed from this first germ, what did they live on while\nthere was no vegetation? What folly is like the folly of the\nevolutionist who claims that such weird speculation is science?\n\nGreat gaps between the principal divisions of the animal world are\nfatal to this speculation, which rests upon nothing but the wish that\nit were so. Links are lacking between marine and amphibian animals;\nreptiles and birds; reptiles and mammals; between apes and man. Of\ncourse, we would find fossils of millions of these links if there were\nany. The missing links are necessary to the scheme. Is there one\nchance in a million that evolution is a true hypothesis?\n\n\n\n20. SEX\n\n\nCan the evolutionist explain the origin of sex? Starting with one germ\nor even a few germs, reproduction must have been by division for a\ntime. If the germ that became the head of all plant life, reproduced\nby division, when did it begin to reproduce by seeds?\n\nIt is still more difficult to explain when sex life began in\nanimals. There could have been no sex life at first, and perhaps for\nages. They can not tell us when the animals, by chance, acquired the\nwonderful adaptation of the sexual life. They have no evidence\nwhatever. Their guess is no better than that of others. It passes\ncredulity to believe that the sexual life, with all its marvelous\ndesign, was reached by the invention of irrational animals, when man,\nwith all his powers of reason, invention, and discovery, is helpless\neven to understand the great wisdom and power that brought it about.\n\nCan blind chance, or aimless effort by senseless brutes, accomplish\nmore than the amazing design of an infinitely wise and powerful God?\n\nHow was the progeny of mammals kept alive, during the ages required\nfor the slow development of the mammae?\n\n\n\n21. MAN HAIRLESS AND TAILLESS\n\n\nHow did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for\nevolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account\nof all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must\nexplain all the facts.  How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin's\nexplanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned\nscientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the\nleast hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because,\nnaturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and,\nfinally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do\nsensible, serious students think of this \"scientific\" explanation?  If\nwe try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of\nphrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of\ntheir fathers, and males the traits of their mothers. Hence, not the\nmales but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous\nprocess.  How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head\nand other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and\nchildren do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is\nthere no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute\nancestors?  Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not\nbelieve in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even\nthe so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from\nthe back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the\nmonkey family.  If there was any good reason why the human brute\nshould lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species\nof the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural\nselection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy\nanimal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute\nperish?  Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great\nabundance.\n\nThe best way to get rid of the hair of the brute is for some\nreconstructing artist, like Prof. J. H. McGregor, to take it off. In a\npicture widely copied by books in favor of evolution, photographed\nfrom his \"restorations,\" the pithecanthropus, the Neanderthal man, and\nthe Cro-Magnon man are represented almost without hair on the body or\neven without beard. Only the Neanderthal man has a tiny Charlie\nChaplin mustache. Their hair had not been combed for 1,000,000 years;\nyet we could not detect it. A sympathetic artist can make a\n\"restoration\" suit his fancy and support any theory.\n\nIf we are descended from simian stock, how did we come to lose our\ntails? Would not the same causes, if any, cause all the species to\nlose their tails? According to the laws of biometry, ought we not to\nfind a retrogression of sections of the human race, who would sport\nsimian tails and be clothed with simian hair? Or, could natural\nselection explain the loss of the tail on the ground that all the\nmonkeys with tails died off, while the tailless ones survived, and\ndeveloped into human beings? In that case, a tail must have been a\nfatal imperfection.\n\n\n\n22. HYBRIDS\n\n\n\"Hybrids would seem to be nature's most available means of producing\nnew species.\" Yet the sterility of hybrids defeats that possibility,\nand rebukes the untruthful claim of the formation of new\nspecies. Nature, with sword in hand, decrees the death of hybrids,\nlest they might produce a new species. Moses wrote the rigid\nunchanging law of nature, when he said that every living creature\nwould bring forth \"after its kind.\"\n\nSpecies are immutable. One does not become another, or unite with\nanother to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed to\nproduce another species.  A few species, so nearly related that we can\nscarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jackass\nand the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile.  The\nzebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewise\nsterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediate\nbetween species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget an\nape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species.\n\nIf evolution be true, we would expect a frequent interbreeding and\ninterchanging of species. Even Darwin admitted that species are\nimmutable. God declared it in his word, and stamps it indelibly on\nevery species. \"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living\ncreature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the\nearth, after its kind'.\"-Gen. 1:24. How did Moses know this great\ntruth, unless he was told by inspiration of God?\n\nEven plant-hybrids are not permanent. Darwin himself says: \"But plants\nnot propagated by seed, are of little importance to us, for their\nendurance is only temporary.\"\n\nEven if it could be proven that species, like varieties, are formed by\ndevelopment, it does not follow that genera and families and classes\nare so developed. But it has not been proved that a single species has\nbeen added by development, much less orders, families and\ngenera. Evolution must account for every division and sub-division to\nplant and animal life. Darwin answers the objection to the sterility\nof hybrids by saying, \"We do not know.\"  \"But why,\" he says, \"in the\ncase of distinct species, the sexual elements should so generally have\nbecome more or less modified, leading to their mutual infertility, we\ndo not know.\" But God knows.\n\n\n\n23. THE INSTINCT OF ANIMALS\n\n\nThe instinct of animals is not due to their own intelligence.  It is\nunerring, unchangeable, without improvement or deterioration. It\nimplies knowledge and wisdom of the highest order. It is beyond the\nwisdom of man.  It comes direct from God. It is not learned nor gained\nby experience. It is found in many species of animals, and even in a\nchild, until knowledge and reason make it unnecessary.\n\nOne of the most familiar illustrations is the instinct of the honey\nbee. It builds its cells in exact geometric form and we compute, by\nCalculus, that the form it uses produces the greatest capacity in\nproportion to the amount of material used. Who taught the bee to build\nits cell, displaying greater knowledge than that of many a college\ngraduate? Darwin says (Origin of Species), \"It can be clearly shown\nthat the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely\nthose of the honey bee, could not possibly have been acquired by\nhabit.\" We quote from Granville's Calculus, p. 119: \"We know that the\nshape of a bee cell is hexagonal, giving a certain capacity for honey\nwith the greatest possible economy of wax.\"  This is demonstrated by\nthe solution of a problem in this same Calculus. Darwin again says\n(Origin of Species, vol. I, p. 342), \"We hear from mathematicians,\nthat bees have practically solved a recondite problem, and have made\ntheir cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amount\nof honey, with the least possible consumption of precious wax in their\nconstruction. It has been remarked that a skilful workman, with\nfitting tools and measures, would find it very difficult to make cells\nof wax of the true form, though this is effected by a crowd of bees,\nworking in a dark room. Each cell, as is well known, is a hexagonal\nprism, with the basal edges of its six sides, beveled so as to join an\ninverted pyramid of three rhombs. These rhombs have certain angles,\nand the three which form the pyramidal base of a single cell on one\nside of the comb, enter into the composition of the bases of the three\nadjoining cells on the opposite side.\"\n\nCan any one suggest an improvement or show an imperfection?  If this\nintelligence is the bee's own, which is far superior to that of the\nape, why did not the bee develop a human brain?\n\nYet in spite of Darwin's admission, he labors hard to show that \"There\nis no real difficulty under changing conditions of life, in natural\nselection accumulating to any extent slight modifications of instinct\nwhich are in any way useful\"! How could the working bee conserve the\ngains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and\nthe queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither\nparent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their\nknowledge or their habits to the working bee? Every new swarm of bees\nwould not know how to build their cells. There is no improvement from\ngeneration to generation. Even if instinct in other animals could be\naccounted for, evolution can not account for the instinct of the\nworking bees, since they are not descendants of other working bees,\nfrom which they might inherit habits or instinct.\n\nIs not the instinct of the bee the intelligence of God, disproving the\nheresy of an absentee God? Here again we get a glimpse of the unerring\nwisdom of God.\n\nThe immoveable oyster, the bee alive with divine intelligence, and the\nsterile progeny of the jackass, are enough to upset the whole theory\nof evolution.\n\n\n\n24. SPECIAL CREATION: GEN. I\n\n\nEvolution can not be true, because it contradicts the inspired word of\nGod. We do not speak arbitrarily and say, without proof, that whatever\ncontradicts the revealed word of God can not be true, although such an\nattitude could be easily defended. Disregarding all the many other\ncogent and legitimate arguments in support of a divine revelation, we\nwill appeal to the remarkable harmony between the story of Creation in\nGenesis and the modern sciences. This could not be, if God had not\nrevealed to Moses the story of creation. Moses personally knew nothing\nrevealed by the sciences of today. And the man of that day who would\ninvent the story of creation, would be sure to conflict with one or\nmore of the following modern sciences: geology, astronomy, zoology,\nbiology, geography, chemistry, physics, anatomy, philology,\narchaeology, history, ethics, religion, etc. There is not one chance\nin a million that a writer of a fictitious account would not have run\namuck among many of these sciences, if, like Moses, he had no personal\nknowledge of them.\n\nAlthough the Babylonian account may have had some foundation in fact,\nfrom a tradition of a prior revelation, it plainly bears the marks of\nerror. \"The Babylonian stories of creation are full of grotesque and\npolytheistic ideas, while those of the Bible speak only of the one\nliving and true God.\" \"All things,\" the Babylonian legend says, \"were\nproduced at the first from Tiamat.\" \"The gods came into being in long\nsuccession, but, at length, enmity arose between them and Tiamat, who\ncreated monsters to oppose them. Merodach, a solar deity, vanquished\nTiamat, cut her body in two, and with one-half of it made a firmament\nsupporting the upper waters in the sky, etc., etc.\" The Babylonian\ngods, like even those of the classics, were criminals fit only for\nprison or death.\n\nAlfred Russell Wallace, who, with Darwin, devised the evolution\ntheory, says: \"There must have been three interpositions of a Divine\nand supernatural power to account for things as they are: _the\nagreement of science with Genesis is very striking_: There is a\ngulf between matter and nothing; one between life and the non-living;\nand a third between man and the lower creation; and science can not\nbridge them!\"\n\nThis \"striking agreement\" between science and Genesis I, is shown by\nthe fact that at least 11 great events are enumerated in the same\norder as claimed by modern science: 1. The earth was \"waste and void\";\n2. \"Darkness was upon the face of the deep\"; 3. Light appears; 4. A\nclearing expanse, or firmament; 5. The elevation of the land and the\nformation of the seas; 6. Grass, herbs and fruit trees appear; 7. The\nsun, moon and stars _appear_; 8. Marine animals were created;\n9. \"Winged fowls\" were created; 10. Land animals were created; 11. Man\nwas created.\n\nThe chance of guessing the exact order of these 11 great events is\nascertained by the law of permutations-the product of the numbers from\n1 to 11, which is 39,916,800.  Therefore, Moses had one chance out of\n39,916,800 to guess the correct order of these 11 great events, as\nrevealed both by science and revelation. If, for example, the first 11\nletters of the alphabet were arranged in some unknown miscellaneous\norder, any one would have but one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess\nthe order. If Moses did not have the order revealed to him, he never\ncould have guessed it. Therefore, he was inspired and was told the\norder.\n\nThis mathematical demonstration annihilates the contradicting theory\nof evolution. At once it proves that the account was divinely\ninspired, and man came by special creation and not by evolution. The\nfact that the language of Genesis is in remarkable harmony with all\nproven modern scientific theories, and manifestly confirmed by them,\nis a proof in favor of the creation story, decisive and final.\n\nThis harmony is manifest whether the Heb. _yom_, day, be taken to\nmean a long period, as advocated by many biblical scholars, or a\nliteral day of 24 hours, followed, it may be, by years or ages of\ncontinuance of the work, before the next day's work of 24 hours began.\n\nBelieving that this interpretation does no violence to the text, and\nthat it is especially in harmony with the statements in the fourth\ncommandment and elsewhere in the Bible, it is here briefly presented\nas one interpretation, showing the marvelous harmony between\nrevelation and the proven, and even the generally accepted, scientific\ntheories. The stately procession of events is the same, no matter\nwhich interpretation is accepted, and doubtless will remain, even if\nboth must yield to another and better interpretation. This majestic\ndivine order, in harmony with both science and revelation, removes all\ndoubt of special creation.\n\nAnother interpretation, advocated by many scholars, is that all\ngeologic ages may have intervened during the time indicated between\nthe 1st and 2nd verses of Gen. I.\n\nThe following is a possible, and, it would seem, a probable\ninterpretation of the inspired creation story. The words of Scripture,\nwhether from the American Revision, or marginal rendering of the\noriginal Hebrew, or other translation, are put in quotation marks:--\n\n\nTHE CREATION--GENERAL STATEMENT\n\n\"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,\" including\nthe sun, moon and stars, and all other matter in any form.\n\n\nDETAILED STATEMENT OF THE ORDER OF CREATION\n\n\"And the earth was waste and void,\" literally \"desolation and\nemptiness.\" And, on account of the thick vapors in the hot atmosphere,\n\"darkness was upon the face of the deep,\" and doubtless had been for\nages.\n\n\"And the Spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters,\" and\n_perhaps_ was calling into being the lowest forms of marine life.\n\n\nThe First Day's Work. Light Appears.\n\n\"And God said, 'Let the light appear',\" through the thick vapors. And\nthe light appeared, so that the day could now be distinguished from\nthe night. \"And there was evening, and there was morning, one day.\"\nThis day did not need to be an age or even 24 hours for God's\nwork. How long did it take light to appear? Many years, and even ages,\nmay have followed between each day's work as the \"days\" were not\nnecessarily consecutive, and it is not so stated.\n\n\nSecond Day's Work. A Clearing Expanse.\n\n\"And God said, 'Let there be a clearing expanse (called heaven)\ndividing the waters which were on the earth from the waters in the\nthick clouds above, firmly suspended in the air'.\" This may have\ncontinued a long time, though begun in 24 hours.\n\n\nThird Day's Work. Land, sea and vegetation appear.\n\n\"And God said, 'Let the waters under the expanse be gathered together\ninto one place (seas and oceans), and let the dry land appear'.\" The\ncontraction of the cooling earth caused the elevation of the land, and\nthe draining of the waters into the seas. The geologist Lyell says,\n\"All land has been under water.\" Hitchcock says, \"The surface of the\nglobe has been a shoreless ocean.\" \"And the earth brought forth grass,\nherb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is\nthe seed thereof, after its kind.\" Though the sun was not yet visible\non account of dense clouds and vapors, the warm, humid atmosphere was\nsuitable for the grass, herbs, and fruit trees,--three great classes\nwhich represented the vegetable kingdom. Ages may have again\nintervened.\n\n\nThe Fourth Day's Work. Sun, moon and stars made visible.\n\n\"And God said, 'Let lights be seen in the open expanse of heaven, to\ndivide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for\nseasons, and for days and years'.\" \"And God made the two great lights\nto _appear_,\" since neither had been seen through the thick\nclouds, \"the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to\nrule the night. He made the stars also to _appear_.\" Though\ncreated first, the stars would appear last. Ages more may have\nintervened.\n\n\nThe Fifth Day's Work. Animal life in sea and air.\n\n\"And God said, 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,\nand let birds fly above the earth upon the face of the expanse of the\nheaven'.\" \"And God created great sea monsters, and every living\ncreature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly, after\ntheir kinds, and every winged fowl after its kind.\"  Geology and Moses\nalike testify that swarms of animals filled the seas. The ages rolled\non while they \"filled the waters of the seas and fowl multiplied on\nthe earth.\"\n\n\nThe Sixth Day's Work. The creation of land-animals and man.\n\n\"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after\nits kind, cattle and creeping things, and beast of the earth after its\nkind'.\" The fifth day animals began to _swarm_ the seas; the\nsixth day, to cover the land.  \"And God said, 'Let us make man in our\nimage, after our likeness',\" in \"knowledge after the image of him that\ncreated him,\" (Col. 3:10) and \"in righteousness and true holiness,\"\n(Eph. 4:24). Yet a professor in a great university was so dense as to\ninsist that the Scriptures taught that the likeness was not in\n\"knowledge, righteousness and true holiness,\" but in the bodily\nform. \"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God\ncreated he him.\" The last of all creation as both revelation and\nscience testify. The image is mental and moral and spiritual. No such\nimage in any other species.\n\nThe body chosen was higher and better than the form of any animal. It\nresembles the bodies of mammals of the highest type. Why should it\nnot? The vast number of animal species, of almost every conceivable\nsize and shape, could not furnish a form so well adapted to the use of\nman as that which the Creator gave him.  Would it have been better if\nman had been created in the form of a fish, a lizard, a serpent, a\ndog, or a horse, or a bird? How could the body have been created\nwithout bearing resemblance to some form of the million species of\nanimals? A resemblance can be traced through the whole creation, the\nmaterial as well as the animal, but it does not follow that one\nspecies is descended from another, but that there was one general\nplan, and one God. The existence of man, who can not be otherwise\naccounted for, proves the existence of the Creator.\n\n\n\n25. ANALOGY; MATHEMATICS, LAWS\n\n\nAnalogy raises a presumption against evolution. Analogy is not a\ndemonstration. It is an illustration that strengthens and confirms\nother arguments. Both the science of mathematics and all physical laws\nmust have come into being in an instant of time. Evolution is not\nGod's usual method of creation.\n\n1. MATHEMATICS.--There is no evolution in the science of\nmathematics. There is no change or growth or development. God is the\nauthor of all mathematical principles. The square described on the\nhypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the\nsquares described on the other two sides, because he made it so.  The\ncircumference of a circle is approximately 3.1416 times the diameter\nbecause he made it so. The wonderful calculations by logarithms,\nwhether by the common system with a base of 10, or the Napierian\nsystem with a base of 2.718+ a decimal that never terminates, are\npossible and reliable only because God made them so.  Think what great\nintelligence is required by the Napierian system, to raise a decimal\nthat never terminates, to a decimal power that never terminates, in\norder to produce an integral number. Yet God has computed\ninstantaneously every table of logarithms, and every other\nmathematical table,--no matter how difficult. Thus we have positive\nproof of the presence everywhere of a great intelligent Being, and we\ncatch a glimpse of that mind that must be infinite. He created the\nwhole system of mathematics, vast beyond our comprehension, at once. A\npart could not exist without the whole. No growth; no change; no\nevolution; no improvement, because the whole system was perfect from\nthe first. Reasoning from analogy, is it not reasonable to say that\nthe God who flashed upon the whole universe, the limitless system of\nmathematics in an instant, also created man as Moses said?  Analogy\nsupports the doctrine of the special creation of man in a day.\n\nThe great system of mathematics which could not exist without a\ncreator, is so extensive that 40 units are taught in a single\nuniversity. New subjects are added, new text books written, new\nformulas devised, new principles demonstrated,--and the subject is by\nno means exhausted.  He, by whose will this fathomless science came\ninto existence, knows more than all the mathematicians of the past,\npresent and future, and possibly all the evolutionists of the world.\n\n2. PHYSICAL LAWS.--All physical laws, prevailing throughout the\nuniverse, came into being by the will of God, in an instant of\ntime. No growth, no change, no development, no evolution. The\npresumption is that God created all things in a similar way. If it was\nwisest and best to bring into being the great science of mathematics\nand fix all physical laws,--all in a moment of time, why should he\nconsume 60,000,000 or 500,000,000 years in bringing man into\nexistence? Evolution is all out of harmony with God's other methods of\nwork.\n\nGravitation was complete from the first. No growth; no evolution. The\nlaws of light, heat, electricity, etc., remain unchanged. Light\ntravels with the same unvarying velocity, as when, 60,000 years ago,\nit started from the distant star-cloud. Some estimate our universe to\nbe 1,000,000 light years across. Yet in all these limitless reaches,\nthe same perfect and complete laws prevail, touching light, heat,\nelectricity, gravitation, etc. God makes no mistakes and no evolution\nis needed. Does not this furnish a presumption that God could and did\ncreate man complete and full grown with a wonderful body, and a soul\nin his own image?\n\nIn this discussion, we have spoken of the \"laws\" of nature, after\ncommon usage. But laws are only a record of God's acts. An\nunchangeable God makes unchangeable laws. There is a rigid fixity\nwritten over the face of nature. Every law and principle is complete\nand perfect and finished, and there is no room for evolution.\n\nMatter did not create itself, nor evolute nor grow. It must have been\ncreated instantaneously by the power of God, whether in a nebulous\ncondition or not. So enchanting is their theory, that many profess to\nbelieve that not only were all species of animals and plants evolved\nfrom a single germ, but that even matter itself was evolved out of\nnothing. This theory of evolution as wide as the universe, as\nponderous as the stars, is supported only by the weak stork legs of\nwistful possibility.\n\n\n\n26. DESPERATE ARGUMENTS\n\n\nMany arguments gravely given in support of evolution, reveal a great\npoverty of facts and logic. An instantaneous photograph of an \"infant,\nthree weeks old, supporting its own weight for over two minutes,\" is\ngiven by Romanes as a proof that man is descended from a simian\n(ape-like) ancestor. As this same picture is widely copied in\nevolution text books, they must have failed to get the picture of any\nother infant performing a like feat. Just how this affords any\nconvincing proof that man is a monkey, we leave the reader to figure\nout.  Our attention is called to the way this child and another child,\nwhose picture is likewise generally copied, hold their feet (like\nmonkeys climbing trees) showing they are little monkeys. Though we\nfail to see the force of this argument, it must be among their best\nfrom the emphasis they give it. Prof. H. H. Newman, of Chicago\nUniversity, a leading evolutionist actually writes as follows,\n(Readings): \"The common cotton-tail rabbit raises its white tail when\nit runs. This is interpreted [by whom, evolutionists or rabbits?] as a\nsignal of danger to other rabbits.\"\n\nThe following absurd speculation, by a lecturer in the \"University\nExtension Course,\" was printed in the Philadelphia Bulletin: \"Evidence\nthat early man climbed trees with their feet lies in the way we wear\nthe heels of our shoes,--more at the outside. A baby can wiggle its\nbig toe without wiggling its other toes,--an indication that it once\nused its big toe in climbing trees. We often dream of falling. Those\nwho fell out of the trees some 50,000 years ago and were killed, of\ncourse, had no descendants (?) So those who fell and were not hurt, of\ncourse, lived, and so we are never hurt in our dreams of falling\"!\nWhile we read these feeble arguments, which the newspapers would call\npiffle, how can we escape the conviction that evolution is in\ndesperate need of argument?  Imagine the Copernican theory relying on\nsuch piffle for support. Is there a freak idea without a freak\nprofessor to support it?\n\n\n\n27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED\n\n\n\nEvolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20\nobjections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and\nProf. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of\n\"Readings in Evolution.\"  Among them are:--\n\n1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the\nformation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing\nlinks exists.\n\n2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such\nas that of the honey bee, \"which has practically anticipated the\ndiscoveries of profound mathematicians.\"\n\n4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are\nsterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the\nformation of new species.\n\n5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not\ninherited.\n\n6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient\nheathen doctrine of chance.\n\n7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore,\ncannot account for the \"survival of the fittest.\"  If the same\nprogressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the\nnumbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can\narise. Such general changes do not occur.\n\n8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight\nchanges. \"What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a\nmammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these\ncreatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?\"\n\n9. Even if Darwinism should explain the _survival_ of the\nfittest, it does not explain the _arrival_ of the fittest, which\nis far more important.\n\n10. Darwin says, \"I am convinced that natural selection has been the\nmost important but not the exclusive means of modification.\" Many\nscientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not\ntrue.\n\n11. \"The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are _quantitative_,\nor plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species\nare _qualitative_.\" Growth and development in one species does\nnot produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles\nDarden, of Tenn., was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but\nremained a member of the human species, though he was as high and\nheavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who\nlived in the days of Augustus.\n\n12. \"There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the\nextreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent\nrigor of selection.\" Overproduction and shortage of space and food\nmight sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the\npast? Has it affected the human race?\n\n13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof.  H. H. Newman says,\n\"This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of\nhistorical interest.\"\n\n14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been\nrejected by scientists as worthless.\n\nIn view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's\ntheory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?\n\nAnd is it not amazing that self-styled \"scientists\" hold on to their\nprecious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight?\nThey can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.\n\n\n\n28. SCIENTISTS CONDEMN EVOLUTION\n\n\nDr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the\nhighest authorities in the world, said:--\"Nine-tenths of the talk of\nevolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly\nunsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter\nfalsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a\nparticle of evidence of the transmutation of species.\" Is a man in\nthat position not a credible witness?\n\nProf. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist,\nsaid: \"There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or\nwas, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature,\nthrough evolution, or by any other process. In support of all\nnaturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at\nthis time, a _shadow of scientific evidence_.\"\n\nProf. Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: \"The\nattempt to find the transition from the animal to man has ended in\ntotal failure. The middle link has not been found and never will\nbe. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that\nman descended from the ape or from any other animal.\"\n\nProf. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after\nfurther investigation repudiated it, said: \"The Darwinian theory of\ndescent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of\nnature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the\nproduct of the imagination.\"\n\nProf. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: \"The\ntheory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake,\nuntrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in\nits tendency.... There is not a fact known to science, tending to show\nthat a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other.\"\n\nDr. W. H. Thompson, former president of N. Y.  Academy of Medicine,\nsaid: \"The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of\nbiologists, as absurdly inadequate.  It is absurd to rank man among\nthe animals.  His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla,\norang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human.\"\n\nSir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: \"The record\nof the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the\nabrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without\napparent predecessors.... Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the\nactual transformation of one species into another. No such case is\ncertainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what\nis told in Scripture.\"\n\nThe foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their\ndeath, repudiated Darwinism.  Haeckel alone supported the theory and\nthat by forged evidence.\n\nDr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University\nCollege of Kensington, calls Darwinism a \"puerile hypothesis.\"\n\nDr. James Orr, of Edinburg University, says: \"The greatest scientists\nand theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be\nabsolutely dead.\"\n\nDr. Traas, a famous palaeontologist, concludes: \"The idea that mankind\nis descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most\nfoolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man.\" Does\nthis apply to H. G. Wells?\n\nDr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geol., in Harvard University, said: \"It\nis not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions,\nnow inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the\noperation of natural selection.\"\n\nProf. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: \"Most modern\ninvestigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine\nof evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be\nmaintained.\"\n\nProf. Huxley, said that evolution is \"not proved and not provable.\"\n\nSir Charles Bell, Prof, of the University College of London, says:\n\"Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct\ncreation, not in a gradual variation from some original type.\"\n\nThese testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a\nlarge number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof.\nTownsend's \"Collapse of Evolution,\" McCann's \"God or Gorilla,\" Philip\nMauro's \"Evolution At the Bar,\" and other anti-evolution books. Alfred\nMcCann, in his great work, \"God or Gorilla,\" mentions 20 of the most\nprominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, \"All\nscholars accept evolution\"!!\n\n\n\nUNSOLICITED TESTIMONIALS\n\n\nAgents for this 20,000 edition may show these selections, culled from\na mass of warm world-wide testimonials, by able critics, authors,\nprofessors, editors, magazines, reviews, governors of states, and\nrulers of nations.  \"Unanswerable;\" \"an absolute demonstration;\"\n\"masterful;\" \"true to title;\" \"clear and convincing;\" \"scholarly and\nlogical;\" \"timely;\" \"terse;\" \"interesting;\" \"best I ever read;\" \"costs\n$1, worth $5;\" \"fully disproves evolution;\" also:--\n\n\"I finished your book today at two sittings. It is the most effective\npolemic on the subject, I have yet seen. You have marshalled the\nevidence of mathematics against the delusion of man's descent from\nbrute ancestry, with telling effect.\"--PHILIP MAURO, Noted Attorney\nand Author.\n\n\"Evolution Disproved is not only a strong book from the scientific and\nargumentative viewpoint, but is also unique in many ways. We wish\neverybody would and could read it, especially those who are enamored\nwith Evolution.\"--PROF. L. S. KEYSER, D.D., in the Bible Champion.\n\n\"Evolution Disproved is a sober, fully sustained and very remarkable\nbook vindicating its title. It surely is one of the most conclusive of\nbooks, tearing to shreds Evolution pretensions. Absolutely\nunanswerable; in the very front rank of masterly books.\"--THE\nMETHODIST.\n\n\"I have, for a third of a century, made Evolution a study, but\nEvolution Disproved really refutes the fallacy more completely than\nany other that I have seen. Some rich man should give it to 20,000,000\nfamilies.\"--REV. C. W. BIBB, N.Y.\n\n\"You certainly have given a masterful treatment of this\nsubject.\"--C. L. HUSTON, Chairman Com. on Evangelism, Pres. Church,\nU.S.A.\n\n\"Interessante\" (French).--President of the Swiss Confederation.\n\n\"Filled with valuable matter systematically arranged; cogent.\"--S.S.\nTIMES, Philadelphia.\n\n\"He shows the evolution of the soul to be impossible.\"--W. R. MOODY,\nin Record of Christian Work.\n\n\"Unexcelled for brevity, clarity and intensity. A compendium of\nfacts.\"--W.C.F.A., which accordingly rewarded the author with honorary\nmembership.\n\n\"The arguments amount to a demonstration.\"--LUTHERAN, Phila.\n\n\"The greatest book of its kind.\"--PROF. M. F. LARKIN, head of the\nInternational Textbook Co., Scranton, Pa.\n\n\"A very informing book.\"--Bp. NUELSEN'S, Sec., Zurich.\n\n\"A most remarkable book.\"--THE LUTHERANEREN (Danish)\n\n\"A vigorous book; a lively volume.\"--BELFAST (Ireland) NEWS.\n\n\"A strong argument.\"--GUERNSEY PRESS, Eng.\n\n\"A very remarkable and provocative book; shows patent evidence of\nlarge research and shrewd thinking.\"--COURIER, Dundee, Scotland.\n\n\"I congratulate you on this scientific work so full of thought.\"--H.\nSEIPEL, Chancellor of Austria,\n\n\"An excellent book.\"--Librarian of Ravenna University, Italy.\n\n\"An interesting attack on evolution.\"--Teachers World, London, Eng.\n\n\"A very excellent book.\"--REV. D. D. MARSH, Ont., Can.\n\n\"The best I ever saw.\"--R. A. McKINNEY, G. A. Com. of 100.\n\n\"Irrefutable; displays unusual information.\"--Dr. D.S. Clark. Phila.\n\n\"He writes from a new angle with great ability.\"--Luth. Church Her.\n\n\"Should do much good.\"--REV. F. HAMILTON, Pyongyang, Korea.\n\n\"I count your book a remarkably strong one. It clearly disproves every\nclaim of Darwinism.\"--DR. H. B. RILEY, President W.C.F.A.\n\n\"Of all books against evolution, the most unique. Its arguments are\neffective and deadly, cumulative and convincing.\"--Bibliotheca Sacra.\n\n\"Our first order, 60 copies.\"--BIBLE UNION, Cape Town, S. Africa.\n\n\"Thanks\" for EVOLUTION DISPROVED have been received from HUNDREDS of\nforeign librarians and national rulers. Write what YOU think!\n\n\n\n\nPART TWO\n\nEVIDENCE ANSWERED\n\n\n\n29. PALEONTOLOGY\n\n\n1. The PITHECANTHROPUS, which is a high sounding name for an\nape-man (from Grk. pithekos, ape, and anthropos, man) was found by\nDr. Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, in 1892, in Trinil in the island\nof Java. It lived, it is said, 750,000 years ago. He found, buried in\nthe Pleistocene beds, 40 feet below the surface in the sand, _the\nupper portion of a skull, a tooth and a thigh bone_. \"It was\nfortunate,\" says Dr. Chapin, \"that the most distinctive portions of\nthe human (sic) frame should have been preserved, because from these\nspecimens, we are able to reconstruct (?) the being, and to say with\nassurance (!)  that his walk was erect in manlike posture, that he had\nmental power considerably above the ape, (it will not do to be too\ndefinite) and his powers of speech were somewhat limited. (A string of\nguesses wholly unwarranted.)  This man stood half way between the\nanthropoid and the existing men.\"--Social Evolution, p. 61.\n\nA high authority declares,--\"Shortly after this discovery, 24 of the\nmost eminent scientists of Europe met.  Ten said that the bones\nbelonged to an ape; 7, to a man; and 7 (less than one-third) said they\nwere a missing link.\"  Some of the most eminent scientists say that\nsome of the bones belong to a man, and some to an ape, baboon, or\nmonkey. The great Prof. Virchow says: \"There is no evidence at all\nthat these bones were parts of the same creature.\" But such adverse\nopinions do not weigh much with modern evolutionists determined to win\nat all hazards.\n\nThe small section of the brain pan, weighing but a few ounces, was\nfound about 50 feet from the thigh bone. One tooth was found 3 feet\nfrom the fragment of skull, and one near the thigh bone, _50 feet\naway_. Since the small section of the brain pan belonged to a\nchimpanzee, and the thigh bone is that of a man, is it likely that\nthese scattered bones belonged to the same creature? Even if they did,\nis it likely that these bones would be preserved in the sand 750,000\nyears, or even 375,000 years according to a later estimate? We know\nthat petrified skeletons, encased in rock, may be millions of years\nold, but where are the unpetrified skeletons of men who lived even\n5,000 years ago? If unpetrified skeletons could last 750,000 years,\nthere would be millions of them. Without a doubt, this skull of a\nchimpanzee, and femur of a man, belong to a modern beast and a modern\nman, buried by floods or earthquakes, or some other convulsion of\nnature, or by slow accumulations. It is said that the Jerusalem of\nChrist's day is buried 20 feet under the surface, by the quiet\naccretions of the dust of 1900 years. Rome also has been covered up in\nrecent centuries. It would be easy for 40 feet of sand to accumulate\nover the bones of a modern man or chimpanzee in a valley, in a few\ncenturies, if 20 feet of dust accumulated on the mountain city of\nJerusalem in 1900 years.\n\nElsewhere we have shown that an ape-man with a cranium of two-thirds\nnormal capacity must have lived at least 20,000,000 years ago,--one\nthird the period of animal existence; or even 166,666,666 years ago,\nif we accept a later claim that life has existed 500,000,000 years. It\nis absolutely impossible that a normal creature of the alleged mental\ncapacity could have lived 750,000 years ago, much less 375,000,\naccording to a later estimate cutting in two the first one. But the\nquickest way to disprove these wild guesses is to check them up by a\nmathematical test. If these bones are normal, such an ape-man could\nnot have lived at the time assigned. If they are not normal, they\nprove nothing whatever for evolution. They can be duplicated now.\n\nWe are asked to believe that these scattered bones,--some the bones of\na modern brute, some the bones of a modern man--were preserved in the\nsand 750,000 years and belonged to an ancestor of the human race,\nwhile of the millions of his generation and of the generations\nfollowing for many thousands of years, we have not a trace!  We are\nasked upon such a flimsy pretext to accept a theory, unsupported by a\nsingle compelling argument, and irreconcilable with numerous facts,--a\ntheory which takes away man's hope of immortality, destroys faith in\nGod and his inspired word, and in the Christian religion itself.\nThere is a limit. How much more truthful and majestic is Gen. 1:27:\n\"And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he\nhim.\"\n\nOne distinguished evolutionist has said, \"We might as well be made out\nof monkey as out of mud. It is mud or monkey.\" Most of us would\nretort, \"I would rather be created a human being out of the filthiest\nmud by Almighty God than owe my existence to the brainiest monkey that\never lived.\" Please note, \"The Lord God formed man of the _dust_\nof the ground,\" not _mud_. The evolutionists are as wild in their\nexegesis as in their guesses.\n\n2. THE HEIDELBERG JAW. The second relic, in the order of time,\nrelied upon by the evolutionists to prove the brute origin of man, is\na \"human jaw of great antiquity, discovered in the _sands_ of the\nMauer River, near Heidelberg.\"  Hence, it is called the Mauer jaw, or\nthe Heidelberg Jaw, or Heidelberg man, or the high sounding Latin name\nof Homo Heidelbergensis. It needs all the names that can be given to\nit, to elevate it to the dignity of an ancestor. \"This jaw was found\nin undisturbed stratified _sand_, (sand again) at the depth of\nabout 69 feet from the summit of the deposit.\" Dr. Schoetensack, the\ndiscoverer, says, \"Had the teeth been absent, it would have been\nimpossible to diagnose it as human.\"\n\nThey say it is 700,000 years old, preserved in sand.  A later estimate\nsays 375,000 years. (Any wild guess will do.) It resembles the jaw of\nan ape, and the tooth of a man. Was it not likely the abnormal jaw of\na modern man, in historic time swept into the sands by the freshets\nand floods of a few centuries? It is only fair to say that many\nscientists of the evolutionary school, do not believe the Heidelberg\nman an ancestor of our race. \"These remains,\" says one, \"show no trace\nof being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape.\" Some claim\nit a connecting link. Others deny it. Some say the find is of the\nutmost value; others say it is worthless. All are guesses, wild\nguesses at that. They hopefully reach out their hands in the night,\nand gather nothing but handfuls of darkness.\n\nSince a modern Eskimo skull has been shown by a distinguished\nscientist to have the same appearance and peculiarities as the\nHeidelberg jaw, it is easy to believe that this jaw can be duplicated\nin many graveyards. Greater abnormalities, in great numbers, can be\nfound in the skeletons of modern man. Without doubt, this jaw belongs\nto modern man, and has no evidential value at all in favor of\nevolution.\n\nWe count these relics normal, in our arguments, because evolutionists\ndo. If they are not normal, they are the remains of modern man and\nbrutes and their whole argument falls to the ground.\n\n3. THE PILTDOWN MAN (OR FAKE). The next fragments of bones, in\nchronological order, upon which evolutionists rely to prove their\nimpossible theory, has been called the Piltdown man. It has been more\ntruthfully called the Piltdown fake. Dr. Chapin gravely tells us\n(Social Evolution, p. 67): \"During the years 1912, a series of\nfragments of a human skull and a jaw bone were found associated with\neolithic implements and the bones of extinct mammals in Pleistocene\ndeposits on a plateau, 80 feet above the river bed, at Piltdown,\nFletching, Sussex, Eng.....The remains were of great importance. The\ndiscoverers regard this relic as a specimen of a distinct genus of the\nhuman species and it has been called Eoanthropus Dawsoni. This extinct\nman lived in Europe hundreds of thousands of years ago.\" We have\npassed over 200,000 to 300,000 years since the Heidelberg man, that\nhave not yielded a scrap of bone, though according to the theory,\ncountless millions of ape-men must have lived in various stages of\ndevelopment, in that great stretch of time. Why were not some of them\npreserved? Simply because there were no ape-men. There are countless\nrelics of apes, but none of ape-men. Even Wells says: \"At a great\nopen-air camp at Solutre, where they seem to have had annual\ngatherings for many centuries, it is estimated there are the bones of\n100,000 horses.\" Would we not expect as many bones of ape-men? While\nWells says the bones of 100,000 horses were found in a single\nlocality, Dr. Ales Hrdlicka says that the bones of 200,000 prehistoric\nhorses were found in another place. Why should we not find, for the\nsame reason, the bones of millions of ape-men and ape-women in 750,000\nyears? Instead of millions we have the alleged fragments of 4, all of\nwhich are of a very doubtful character.\n\nThe bones of this precious Piltdown find consisted, at first, of a\n_piece of the jaw bone, another small piece of bone from the\nskull_, and a canine tooth, which the zealous evolutionists located\nin the lower right jaw, when it belonged in the upper left; later, two\nmolar teeth and two nasal bones,--scarcely a double hand full in\nall. An ape-man was \"reconstructed\" made to look like an ape-man,\naccording to the fancy of the artist. The artist can create an\nape-man, even if God could not create a real man! But scientists said\nthe teeth did not belong to the same skull, and the jaw could not be\nassociated with the same skull.  Ales Hrdlicka says, \"The jaw and the\ntooth belong to a fossil chimpanzee.\" Conscientious scientists said\nthat the pieces of the jaw and skull could not belong to the same\nindividual. They constructed a scarecrow from the bones of an ape and\nof a man, and offer this, without the batting of an eye, as a\nscientific proof of the antiquity of man.  The great anthropologist of\nworld-wide reputation, Prof.  Virchow, said: \"In vain have Darwin's\nadherents sought for connecting links which should connect man with\nthe monkey. _Not a single one has been found_. This so-called\npro-anthropus, which is supposed to represent this connecting link,\nhas not appeared. No true scientist claims to have seen him.\" Sir Ray\nLancaster, writing to H. G.  Wells, concerning the Piltdown find,\nsays, \"We are stumped and baffled.\" Yet in spite of all this, nearly\n1,000,000 persons annually pass through the American Museum of Natural\nHistory in New York, and view the \"reconstruction\" according to the\nartist's fancy, of the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the\nPiltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, the \"ancestors of the human\nrace;\" and the multitude of high school students and teachers, as well\nas the general public, are not told how dubious and unscientific the\nrepresentation is.\n\nThe brain capacity of the Piltdown individual (man or ape) is set down\nby his discoverers at 1070 c.c., which is 28 2/3% short of the normal\nskull capacity, 1500 c.c.  Therefore, he must have lived 17,200,000\nyears ago, if we accept the estimate of 60,000,000 years since life\nbegan; or 143,333,333 years ago, if we accept the later guess of\n500,000,000 years. It could not have lived near the time assigned.  In\nshort, no guess of the origin of man that differs materially from the\ntime assigned in the word of God, can be harmonized with the facts.\n\n4. THE NEANDERTHAL MAN. The next slender prop is the\nNeanderthal man, claimed to be 40,000 to 50,000 years old, although we\nare told that that is very uncertain.\n\nDr. Chapin says, \"The first important discovery of the existence of an\nearly example of mankind differing markedly from any living (?) and of\na decidedly lower type, was made in 1857, when a part of a skull was\nfound in a cave near Dusseldorf, Germany. The bones consisted of the\nupper portion of a cranium, remarkable for its flat retreating curve,\nthe upper arm and thigh bones, a collar bone, and rib fragments.\" From\nthese fragments, an ape-man has been created (by the artist), about 5\nft. 3 in.  high, strong, fierce in look, and having other\ncharacteristics created by the artist.\n\nDr. Osborn assigns to the Neanderthal skull a capacity of 1408 c.c.,\nwhich would indicate that he lived 3,680,000 years ago, if life began\n60,000,000 years ago; or 30,666,666 years ago, if life began\n500,000,000 years ago.\n\nFrom the first, many naturalists claimed that these bones belonged to\nan abnormal specimen of humanity.  They can be easily duplicated.\nNaturalists have maintained many divergent opinions: an idiot, an\nearly German, a Cossack, a European of various other nationalities, a\nMongolian, a primitive ape-man, an ancestor of modern man, and an\nimpossible ancestor of man. Not very reliable evidence to support the\nstupendous scheme of evolution!\n\nNow these four finds are the weak props supporting the desperate claim\nof the brute origin of man. Dr.  Chapin says (Social Evolution,\np. 68): \"Other skulls and bone parts of prehistoric man have been\nfound, and preserved in museums, but the specimens described (the four\nabove mentioned) are sufficient to illustrate _the type of\nevidence_ they constitute.\" The later finds measuring close to\nnormal capacity, doubtless are the bones of the descendants of\nAdam. Even by the admission of this text-book author, the evidence\nfrom other remains is no more convincing than that from these four\ntypes.\n\nSome evolutionists say that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man,\nthe Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, form an unbroken line of\ndescent from the ape, each in turn becoming less like the ape, and\nmore like man. Others claim that the pithecanthropus was the end of a\nspecial branch of the apes; the Heidelberg man the last of another\nextinct branch; the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man, likewise the\nlast of other extinct species. In this case, all four finds have no\nevidential value whatever. All these confusing guesses from evidence\nso scant and uncertain, stamp evolution a \"science falsely so called.\"\n\nIf these branches, species, or races of ape-like creatures ended, as\nclaimed, in the age to which these alleged remains belonged, they\ncould not have been the ancestors of the human race, and these alleged\nlinks were not links at all. Some evolutionists say that the\nNeanderthal race became extinct 25,000 years ago. If so, they were not\nour ancestors. We are curious to know what caused the extinction of\nall these races. Prof. R. S. Lull confesses, \"However we account for\nit, the fact remains that ancient men are _rare_.\" Most unbiased\nstudents would say such men never existed. The entire absence of human\nremains during the 750,000 years and more is a demonstration against\nthe brute origin of man, and a proof of special creation.\n\nIt will be remembered that there is no complete skeleton among all the\nremains, nor enough parts to make one altogether, nor to make any\nlarge part of a skeleton,--not even an entire skull. What bones are\nfound are not joined together, and some of them scattered so widely\napart, that no one can be certain they belong to the same\nindividual. Some of the bones belong to an ape, and some to\nman,--doubtless modern man. Ardent evolutionists, with a zeal worthy\nof a better cause, have taken a fractional bone of a man, and a bone\nof an ape, and fashioned a composite being, and called it an ape-man,\nand their ancestor.\n\nEvery one of these finds is disputed by scientists, and even by\nevolutionists. And all these doubtful relics would not fill a small\nmarket basket. Yet some are ready to say that evolution is no longer a\nguess or a theory, but a proven fact. Text books like Chapin's Social\nEvolution are placed in the hands of pupils giving only the arguments\nin favor, and the student, even if disposed to question this flimsy\nand unsupported theory, is helpless in the hands of an adroit\nprofessor. Dr. Gruenberg's high school text book teaches that man is\ndescended from the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg, the Piltdown and\nthe Neanderthal man, without the slightest intimation that such\ndescent is at all disputed or questioned. What right has anyone to\nteach this false and unproved theory as the truth?\n\n\n\n30. CONFESSED COLLAPSE OF \"PROOF\"\n\n\nThe claim that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown\nman, and the Neanderthal man, were the ancestors of man, collapses\nunder the admissions of evolutionists themselves. The eminent Wassman\nsays: \"There are numerous fossils of apes, the remains of which are\nburied in the various strata from the lower Eocene to the close of the\nalluvial epoch, but _not one connecting link_ has been found\nbetween their hypothetical ancestral forms and man at the present\ntime. The whole hypothetical pedigree of man is _not supported by a\nsingle fossil genus or a single fossil species_\" (all italics\nours).  Darwin says: \"When we descend to details, _we can prove that\nnot one species has changed_.\" How, then, can man be descended from\nthe brute?\n\nEven H. G. Wells, who seems ready to endorse the most extravagant\nviews, says (Outline of History, p.  69), \"We can not say that it (the\npithecanthropus) is a direct human ancestor.\" On p. 116, is a \"Diagram\nof the Relationship of Human Races,\" showing that neither the\npithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, nor the\nNeanderthal man, could have been an ancestor of the human race,\nbecause each were the last of their species, and therefore had no\ndescendants.\n\nDr. Keith, a London evolutionist, says that the Piltdown man is not an\nancestor of man, much less an intermediate between the Heidelberg man\nand the Neanderthal man. Sir Ray Lancaster confesses he is \"baffled\nand stumped\" as to the Piltdown man. Dr. Keith says the \"Neanderthal\nman was not quite of our species.\"\n\nDr. Osborn says that the Heidelberg man \"shows no trace of being\nintermediate between man and the anthropoid ape.\" Again, speaking of\nthe teeth of the St. Brelade man, Dr. Osborn says, \"This special\nfeature alone would exclude the Neanderthals from the ancestry of the\nhigher races.\"\n\nProf. R. S. Lull says, \"Certain authorities have tried to prove that\nthe pithecanthropus is nothing but a large gibbon, but the weight of\nauthority considers it prehuman, though not in the line of direct\ndevelopment in humanity.\"\n\nProf. Cope, a distinguished anatomist, says, \"The femur [of the\npithecanthropus] is that of a man, it is in no sense a connecting\nlink.\"\n\nIn his \"Men of the Old Stone Age,\" Dr. Osborn puts the\npithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the\nNeanderthal man, on limbs which _terminate abruptly as extinct\nraces_. They can, in no sense, then, be the ancestors of man, or\nconnecting links. Why, then, do they cling so desperately to these\nalleged proofs, when they admit they have no evidential value? Only\nsheer desperation, just as a drowning man will clutch a straw.\n\nDr. W. E. Orchard says: \"The remains bearing on this issue, which have\nbeen found are very few, and their _significance is hotly disputed\nby scientists themselves,--both their age, and whether they are human\nor animal, or mere abnormalities_.\"\n\nSince these four creatures (of the evolutionists) can not be the\nancestors of the human race, where are their descendants?\nEvolutionists are obliged to say they were the last of their\nkind. Strange! But there is no other way of escape.\n\nProf. Bronco, of the Geological and Palaeontological Institute of\nBerlin University, says, \"_Man appeared suddenly in the Quaternary\nperiod. Palaeontology tells us nothing on the subject,--it knows\nnothing of the ancestors of man_.\"\n\nAs fossils must be imbedded in rock, there is not a single fossil of\nan ape-man in the world.\n\n\n\n31. PICTURES IN CAVERNS\n\n\nTo bolster up the hypothesis, that some of the scraps of bones\nbelonged to ape-men; who lived about 50,000 years ago, we are told\nthat, in many caverns there are paintings of animals, some of which\nare extinct, proving that the artists were ape-men of advancing\nintellect, living in that day. These drawings are rude, and inexact,\nand the resemblance to extinct animals rather fanciful.  If the writer\nwere to try to draw a picture of a horse on the stone walls of a dark\ncavern, with no light, it would be just as likely to resemble an\nextinct animal, or possibly an animal that never did live and never\nwill.  Many of the paintings are found in the depths of unlit caverns,\noften difficult of access. How could they paint any picture in the\ndark, when even fire was unknown, and the torch and lamp-wick had not\nyet been invented?  And how could they make a ladder, or erect\nscaffolding of any sort in that rude age, before there were inventions\nof any kind? Yet they tell us that the frescoes on the ceiling of the\ndark cavern of Altamira, Spain, were made 25,000 to 50,000 years ago,\nwhen fire was unknown, and they ask us to believe that several colors\nare used, brown, red, black, yellow, and white; and that these\ndrawings and colors have remained undisturbed and unchanged through\nthese long ages. Is it easier to believe this, than to believe that\nthese drawings were made by modern man, using modern inventions? A\ntheory left to such support, must be poverty-stricken in argument\nindeed.\n\n\n\n32. VESTIGIAL ORGANS\n\n\nThe claim is made that the so-called rudimentary organs in the human\nbody such as the appendix, are the remnants of more complete organs\ninherited from our animal ancestors. It is a strange argument that a\nonce complete and useful organ in our alleged animal ancestors, when\nit becomes atrophied in man, causes such an improvement and advance,\nas to cause man to survive, when his ancestors with more perfect\norgans became extinct.  Man with less perfect organs became the\ndominant species. If the perfect organ were better than the\nrudimentary organ, how can man be the \"survival of the fittest\"? If\nrudimentary organs are a proof of descent from animals with more\nextensive, if not more perfect, organs, then both man and monkeys must\nbe descended from the rat, which has the longest proportionate\nappendix of all. If unused muscles speak of our ancestry, the horse\nhas the strongest claim to be our ancestor.\n\nBut many organs, such as \"the thyroid gland, the thymus gland, and the\npineal gland,\" formerly classified as rudimentary organs, are found to\nbe very useful and necessary.\n\nPhysicians have found the appendix very useful in preventing\nconstipation, which its removal usually increases.  If we only knew\nenough, we would, no doubt, discover a beneficial use for all the\nso-called vestigial organs. Our ignorance is no argument against the\nwisdom of their creation. The claim that human hair is vestigial is\nspoiled by the fact that there is none on the back where most abundant\non simians.\n\n\n\n33. SEROLOGY, OR BLOOD TESTS\n\n\nThey tell us that the blood of a dog injected into the veins of a\nhorse, will kill the horse, whereas the blood of a man injected into\nthe veins of an ape results in very feeble reaction, which proves that\nthe dog and the horse, they say, are not related by blood, while the\nman and the ape are so related. But a distinguished authority says,\n\"The blood of the dog is poisonous to other animals, whilst, on the\nother hand, the blood and the blood serum of the _sheep, goat_\nand _horse_, have generally little effect on other animals _and\non man_. It is for this reason that these animals and particularly\nthe horse, are used in preparation of the serums employed in\nmedicines.\"\n\nIt is also stated as a fact that mare's milk more nearly resembles\nhuman milk than that of any other animal save the ass, a nearly\nrelated species--to the mare, let us hope, not to us. Because of this\nresemblance, it is reported by Dr. Hutchinson that, \"One of the large\ndairy companies in England now keeps a stock of milch asses for the\npurpose of supplying asses' milk for delicate human babes.\"\n\nThese well-known facts would prove the horse and the ass a nearer\nrelative than the ape, since serums are not made from the blood of the\nape. We prefer the innocent sheep to the ape as our near relative, and\nwill allow the evolutionists to claim the goat.\n\nDr. W. W. Keen, Prof. Emeritus of Jefferson College, Phila., in his\nbook, \"I believe in God and in Evolution,\" on p. 48 says, \"Here again\nyou perceive such identity of function, that the thyroid gland of\nanimals, when given as a remedy to man, performs precisely the same\nfunction as the human thyroid. Moreover, it is not the thyroid gland\nfrom the anthropoid apes that is used as a remedy but that from the\nmore lowly sheep.\"  Again the force of Dr. Keen's argument goes to\nprove, so far as it has any weight, that we have a nearer kinship to\nthe sheep than the ape. Children are nourished by the milk of the cow,\nthe ass and the goat, not of the ape.  Vaccine matter is taken from\nthe cow and serums from the horse, not from any species of monkey, to\nwhich we do not seem to be related at all.\n\nThe conclusions of the blood tests are unreliable and uncertain. W. B.\nScott, an expert evolutionist, says, \"It must not be supposed that\nthere is any exact mathematical ratio between the degrees of\nrelationship indicated by the blood tests, and those which are shown\nby anatomical and palaeontological evidence.... It could hardly be\nmaintained that an ostrich and a parrot are more nearly allied than a\nwolf and a hyena, and yet that would be the inference from the blood\ntests.\"\n\nProf. Rossle, in 1905, according to McCann, presented evidence to show\nthat the blood reaction does not in any manner indicate how closely\nany two animals are related; and that evidence based on resemblance of\nblood is not trustworthy in support of a common relationship.  In many\ncases, transfusions of the human blood into apes have positive\nreactions. We do not make pets of the ape, baboon or chimpanzee, but\nof the dog whose traits are far more nearly human. If any brute\nancestor is possible, have not the evolutionists guessed the wrong\nanimal?\n\n\n\n34. EMBRYOLOGY\n\n\nEmbryology, or the Recapitulation Theory, is the last, and perhaps the\nleast important of the claims advanced in favor of evolution. It is\nclaimed that the whole history of evolution is briefly repeated in the\nearly stages of embryonic life. W. B. Scott, in the \"Theory of\nEvolution,\" says, \"Thirty years ago, the recapitulation theory was\nwell nigh universally accepted. Nowadays it is very seriously\nquestioned, and by some high authorities is altogether denied.\"\n\nIt is hard to see why the history of the species should be repeated by\nthe embryo. It is difficult to crowd the history of ages into a few\ndays or weeks. It must be enormously abbreviated. It is a physical\nimpossibility.  Changes caused by many environments must take place in\nthe same environment, contradicting the theory of evolution.  So many\nexceptions must be made that there can be no universal law. Such\ngeneral similarity as we find in embryonic life, may be accounted for,\non the ground that the Creator used one general plan with unlimited\nvariation, never repeating himself so as to make two faces or two\nleaves or two grains of sand exactly alike.\n\n\"Embryology is an ancient manuscript with many of the sheets lost,\nothers displaced, and with spurious passages interpolated by a later\nhand.\" It is hard to construct a syllogism, showing the force of the\nargument from Embryology.  Try it.\n\nVarious other evolution arguments are answered in PART ONE, and\ncompletely refuted by UP-TO-DATE SCIENTIFIC FACTS. No one has yet\nnoted an error, nor answered an argument. If all students, teachers,\nministers, etc., had this book (pp. 116-7), evolutionists could no\nlonger conceal the \"unanswerable arguments,\" nor answer them by\nridicule or abuse.\n\n\n\n\nPART THREE\n\nTHE SOUL\n\n\n\n35. THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL\n\n\nEvolution fails to account for the origin of the body of man. Still\nmore emphatically, does it fail to account for the origin of the soul,\nor spiritual part of man. This is part of the stupendous task of\nevolution. Its advocates give it little or no attention. We are not\nsurprised.  If they _could_ show the evolution of the human body\n_probable_ or even _possible_, they can never account for\nthe origin of the soul, save by creation of Almighty God.  We can not\nrelease evolutionists upon the plea that they cannot account for the\nfaculties and spiritual endowments of man. This is a confession of\ncomplete failure.  Though invisible to the eye or the microscope, they\nare positive realities. They can not be dismissed with a wave of the\nhand or a gesture of contempt. We have a right to demand an\nexplanation for every phenomenon connected with the body or soul of\nman. The task may be heavy, and even impossible, yet every hypothesis\nmust bear every test or confess failure. They have undertaken to\npropose a scheme that will account for the origin of man, as he is,\nsoul and body, and if they fail, the hypothesis fails.\n\nHow do we account for the existence of each individual soul? It can\nnot be the product of the arrangement of the material of the brain, as\nthe materialists do vainly teach. It can not be the product of\nevolution, nor a growth from the father or mother. The soul is not\ntransmitted to be modified or changed. It is indivisible. The soul of\nthe child is not a part of the soul of either parent.  The parents\nsuffer no mental loss from the new soul.  It must be created before it\ncan grow. God creates each soul without doubt, and so God created the\nsouls of Adam and Eve. If creation is possible now, it was possible at\nthe beginning of the race. If God creates the soul now, analogy\nteaches strongly the creation of the souls of Adam and Eve. If\nevolution be true, there was no creation in the past, and is none\nnow. This is contradicted by the facts every day and every hour.\n\n\n\n36. PERSONALITY\n\n\nAn evolutionist writes: \"We do not undertake to account for\npersonality.\" We reply, \"That is a part of your problem. You have\nundertaken to solve the riddle of the universe by excluding all\nevidence of an existing and active God, and we can not release you\nbecause a feature of the problem may be unusually difficult or\nembarrassing, or even fatal to your theory. It is a fight to the death\nin the interest of truth; and we purpose to use every weapon of\nscience against a theory so unscientific, so improbable, so far\nreaching, and so baneful in its effects. It takes faith, hope and\ncomfort from the heart of the Christian, destroys belief in God, and\nsends multitudes to the lost world.\"\n\nPersonality is consciousness of individuality. When did personality\nbegin? When did any members of the species become conscious of\npersonality? When did they begin to realize and to say in thought, \"I\nam a living being.\" What animals are conscious of personality? Any of\nour cousins of the monkey tribe? Is the horse conscious of\npersonality, or the ox, the cat or the dog? If so, does the skunk have\npersonality, the mouse, the flea, the worm, the tadpole, the\nmicroscopic animal? If so, do our other cousins have personality,--the\ntrees, the vines, the flowers, the thorn and the brier, the cactus and\nthe thistle, and the microscopic disease germs? If so, when did\npersonality begin? With the first primordial germ? If so, were there\ntwo personalities when the germ split in two, and became two, animal\nand plant? You can not split a man up into two parts with a\npersonality to each part. Personality is indivisible. It is a\nconsciousness of that indivisibility. If personality began anywhere\nalong the line, where, when, and how did it originate? Was it\nspontaneous, or by chance, or was it God-given? Beyond all question,\nit was the gift of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator, and in no\nsense the product of evolution. God made man a living soul.\n\nBut if no plant or animal ever had personality, when did man first\nbecome conscious of his individuality?  There is no evidence, of\ncourse, but the evolutionist must produce it, or admit failure. The\nevolutionist is short on evidence but long on guesses that miss the\nmark.\n\nIf all animals and plants came from one germ, why do animals have the\nsenses, sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing, while plants are\nutterly devoid of them? They had a nearly equal chance in the\nrace. Why the great difference?\n\n\n\n37. INTELLECT, EMOTIONS AND WILL\n\n\nThe activity and energy of the soul are shown in the intellect, the\nemotions and the will. What evidence of these do we find in the animal\nworld? Do we find intellect in the lobster, emotions in a worm, or\nwill in an oyster? Whence came these elements of spiritual strength?\nIf developed by evolution, where, when, and how?\n\nHave the most advanced species of animals an intellect?  Do they have\nthe emotions of love, hate, envy, pity, remorse or sympathy? Has a\nworm envy, a flea hate, a cat pity a hog remorse, or a horse sympathy?\nIf these existed in so-called pre-historic man, when, where, and how\ndid they begin? No one can answer, because there is not a trace of\nproof that they ever existed.\n\nWill natural selection explain the development of the mental\nfaculties? Was art developed because those who lacked it perished? Do\nwe account for the musical faculty, because those who could not sing\nperished? Some still live who ought to be dead! Do we account for\nhumor because they perished who could not crack a joke? Will all\neventually perish but the Irish, who will survive by their wit? Is\nanything mentioned in science quite so ridiculous as natural\nselection?\n\nNot an animal has a trace of wit, or humor, or pathos.  Not an animal\nhas ever laughed, or spoken, or sung. The silence of the ages\ndisproves evolution.\n\n\n\n38. ABSTRACT REASON\n\n\nWhen did reason begin? Do we find it in any species of plant or animal\nlife, save man? The highest order of animals can not reason enough to\nstart a fire or replenish one. A dog, or a cat, or even a monkey, will\nenjoy the warmth from a fire but will not replenish it, although they\nmay have seen it done many times. Animals may be taught many\ninteresting tricks; many can imitate well.  But they do not have the\npower of reflection or abstract reason. They live for the\npresent. They have no plans for tomorrow,---no purpose in life. They\ncan not come to new conclusions. They can not add or subtract,\nmultiply or divide. They can not even count. Some animals can solve\nvery intricate problems by instinct, but instinct is the intelligence\nof God, and never could have come by evolution.\n\nIf reason came not from God, but from evolution, should we not expect\nit well developed in evolutionary man, since for the last 3,000,000\nyears he must have been 95 to 100 per cent, normal. If we grant the\nestimate of 500,000,000 years, he would have been 99.4% normal for the\nlast 3,000,000 years. Would we not expect in that time a world of\ninventions and discoveries, even surpassing those of the last 100\nyears? The Chinese claim a multitude of inventions and a race so\nnearly normal as ape-men, ought to have invented language, writing,\nprinting, the telegraph, phonograph, the wireless, the radio,\ntelevision, and even greater wonders than in our age.\n\nThere is no trace of intelligence in man in all the 3,000,000 years,\nprior to Adam.\n\nWe should have many works excelling Homer's Iliad, Vergil's Aeneid,\nand Milton's Paradise Lost. We have no trace of a road, or a bridge,\nor a monument, like the pyramids. That no race of intelligent\ncreatures ever lived prior to Adam is proven by lack of affirmative\nevidence.  If it be true, as Romanes declared, that the power of\nabstract reason in all the species was only equal to that of a child\n15 months old, then each species would possess less than one millionth\nof that.\n\n\n\n39. CONSCIENCE\n\n\nIf the origin of the mental faculties can not be accounted for by\nevolution, much less can the moral faculty, the religious nature and\nspirituality be accounted for.\n\n\nThe most confirmed evolutionist will not claim that the tree or the\nvine or the rose, or perhaps any animal, has a conscience. If,\nhowever, conscience is a growth or development, why should it not\nexist in some measure in both the animal and the vegetable kingdoms?\nHas any brute any idea of right or wrong? Has a hog any idea of right\nor wrong, of justice or injustice? What animal has ever shown regret\nfor a wrong, or approval of right in others? If conscience is a\ndevelopment within the reach of every species, many of the million or\nmore, no doubt, would have shown some conscience long ago.\n\nBut if man developed conscience, why have not our near relatives of\nthe monkey family developed a conscience? They had the same chance as\nman. Why should man have a conscience, and monkeys none?\n\nWhy is there no trace of conscience in the animal or vegetable\nkingdom? Because it is the gift of God.\n\nWhat sign of regret, repentance, or remorse, do we find in the cat or\nthe dog, the rat or the hog? If a bull gores a sheep to death, does he\nexpress regret? Is a horse sorry if he crushes to death a child or a\nchicken under his hoof? Can any animal be sorry for stealing food from\nanother? Will it take any steps to undo the wrong?\n\nMan, according to evolution, is a creature of environment.  He is a\nvictim of brute impulse. He has no conscience, no free will, he can\ncommit no crime. Killing is not murder. It is not sin. Man can not be\nresponsible.  Without conscience, a victim of circumstances, rushed on\ninto crime, sin, and injustice, responsible to no God!\n\nThe heart sickens at the brightest picture evolution can paint. The\ndifficulty of showing the evolution of the body is insuperable, but\nthe evolution of the soul, with all its mental, moral and spiritual\nequipment, is an absolute impossibility.  Small wonder that\nevolutionists are unwilling to discuss the origin of the soul.\n\n\n\n40. SPIRITUALITY\n\n\nDoes any plant or animal worship God? How much theology does a cow\nknow? What does the horse think about God? What animal lives with an\nanxious desire to please God? How many are desirous of obeying God?\nHow many species trust Him? How many love Him?  How many pray to Him?\nHow many praise Him for his goodness? Evidently no animal knows\nanything about God, or ever thinks of worshiping Him.\n\nMan alone worships God. When did he begin? The idea of God seems to be\nin the hearts of all except the dupes of evolution, and the\nBolshevists of Russia. The great problem to explain is how the worship\nof God began, and why man alone now worships Him.\n\nPersonality, reason, intellect, emotions, will, conscience,\nspirituality, and all the faculties and equipment of the soul, are\nnaturally and easily explained upon the basis of creation, but\nevolution can not account for them at all.\n\nAbout 2,000,000 years ago, we are told, man and the monkey family were\nchildren of the same parents. These children headed species with an\neven start. Yet man alone developed personality, consciousness,\nintelligence, and all the equipment of the soul; all the others\nremained stationary. This is incredible. It is inconsistent with\nmathematical probability. Is it likely that one species and one alone\nout of a million, with similar environments, would reach these high\nmental and spiritual attainments?  No! \"God created man in his own\nimage, in the image of God created he him,\"-Gen. 1:27. This\ndeclaration explains all the difficulties which are insuperable to the\nevolutionist.\n\n\"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.\"\nThis likeness was not a physical likeness as a learned (?) university\nprofessor asserted, but a likeness in _knowledge, righteousness and\nholiness_. No animal is made in the image of God. There is not the\ntrace of a soul in all animal creation. How could the soul of man\ndevelop from nothing?\n\nGod is still creating new creatures in Christ Jesus, in righteousness\nand true holiness, which can not come by evolution, for sinful\ncreatures can only grow in sinfulness, until the creative power of God\nmakes them new creatures, as the following study in Eugenics will\nshow: Elizabeth Tuttle, the grandmother of Jonathan Edwards, the\neminent scholar and divine, was, according to H. E.  Walter, a \"woman\nof great beauty, of tall and commanding appearance, striking carriage,\nof strong, extreme intellectual vigor, and mental grasp akin to\nrapacity, but _with an extraordinary deficiency in moral sense. She\nwas divorced from her husband on the ground of adultery and other_\nIMMORALITIES. The evil trait was in the blood, for one of her sisters\nmurdered her own son, and a brother murdered his own sister, As\nRichard Edwards, his grandfather, had 5 sons and 1 daughter, by a\nsecond wife, but none of their numerous progeny rose above mediocrity,\nand their descendants gained no abiding reputation, Jonathan Edwards\nmust have owed his remarkable mental qualities largely to his\ngrandmother rather than his grandfather. He was evidently a new\ncreation in Christ Jesus and was cured by grace of all inherited\nimmoralities, so that he became the ancestor of one of the most\nremarkable families in the history of the world, as follows:--\n\n\"Jonathan Edwards was born in 1703. He was strong in character,\nmentally vigorous and fearlessly loyal to duty. In 1900, of the\ndescendants of Jonathan Edwards, 1394 had been located and the\nfollowing information in regard to them had been gathered: College\npresidents, 13; college professors, 65; doctors, 60; clergymen,\nmissionaries, etc., 100; officers in the army and navy, 75; eminent\nauthors and writers, 60; lawyers, over 100; judges, 30; holders of\npublic offices, one being vice-president of the United States, 80;\nUnited States senators, 3; managers of railroads, banks, insurance\ncompanies, etc., 15; college graduates, 295; several were governors\nand holders of important state offices.\"\n\nThe claim is also made that \"almost if not every department of social\nprogress and of public weal has felt the impulse of this healthy and\nlong-lived family.\"\n\n\"The 'Jukes' family was founded by a shiftless fisherman born in New\nYork in 1720, Since that time the family has numbered 1200\npersons. The following facts are quoted from the _records_:\nConvicted criminals, 130; habitual thieves, 60; murderers, 7; wrecked\nby diseases of wickedness, 440; immoral women, fully one-half;\nprofessional paupers, 310; trades learned by twenty, ten of these\nlearned the trade in prison.\n\n\"How much of this expense to the state was due to bad blood we can not\nsay. If the original Jukeses had become Christians we have no doubt\nthat the majority of their descendants would have been humble, but\norderly, and possibly useful citizens.\"\n\nAaron Burr, a grandson of Jonathan Edwards, lacked but one electoral\nvote to become president of the U.S.  His intellectual standing in\nPrinceton was not equaled by another for 100 years.\n\nJonathan Edwards was a new creation, as is every other regenerated\nperson.\n\nAccording to evolution, there can be no new creation.  According to\nthe word of God, and the experience of an innumerable host, God is\ncontinually creating souls anew, who become \"new creatures\". Evolution\nis not in harmony with the Bible nor the experience of the children of\nGod.\n\nWhenever it can be shown that men become more spiritual when they\naccept the theory, and become more devoted to saving souls as their\nzeal for the theory increases, the theory will be worthy of more\nserious consideration.  We await the evidence.\n\nEvolution can not account for the spirituality of man, but tends to\ndestroy it where it exists.\n\n\n\n41. THE HOPE OF IMMORTALITY\n\n\nThe belief in the immortality of the soul has been well nigh\nuniversal, in all ages, and among all nations, and is taught by all\nreligions. Without it, life and death are insolvable mysteries. A\ndoctrine so universal, so well established by reason, ought not to be\nset aside without the most convincing reasons and the most compelling\nevidence. Either this universal belief is due to revelation, or the\nabundance of proof appealing to reason, or both.\n\nA child is born, suffers agonies for weeks and months, and dies. If no\nfuture, who can solve the mystery? John Milton writes his immortal\n\"Paradise Lost,\" and dies.  Must his great soul perish? Nero murdered\nhis brother, his sister, his wife and his mother, and multitudes of\nChristians and lastly himself, and was guilty of a multitude of other\nshocking crimes; while many of the best men and women this world ever\nknew suffered persecution and martyrdom for doing good and blessing\nothers.  Will they all alike meet the same fate--annihilation--at the\nhands of a just God?\n\nThe immortality of the soul is supported by science.  Science teaches\nthe indestructibility of matter. Not all the power that man can bring\nto bear, can destroy the minutest portion of matter, not a molecule,\nnot an atom, not an electron. The smallest particle of dust visible to\nthe eye contains, we are told, about 8,000,000,000 atoms, and each\natom, as complex as a piano,--1740 parts. Not one of these atoms or\nparts could be annihilated by all the power of a thousand Niagaras.\n\nIn all the multiplied chemical changes everywhere in the world, not a\nsingle particle, the most worthless, is lost or destroyed. Dissolve a\nsilver dollar in aquafortis, and then precipitate it to the bottom,\nand not a particle need be lost. If God takes such scrupulous care of\nthe most worthless particle of matter, will he suffer the immortal\nsoul to perish? If he preserves the dust, how much more so the highest\nof all his creations, the mind that can write an epic, compose an\noratorio, or liberate a race. Evolution crushes out of the heart the\nhope of immortality, and makes man but an improved brute, while Jesus\nChrist \"hath brought life and immortality to light through the\ngospel.\"\n\nIf evolution be true, when did man become immortal?  At what period\ndid he cease to be a brute, and become an immortal soul? Was it before\nthe days of the pithecanthropus, the Piltdown fraud, the Heidelberg\nman, or the Neanderthal man?\n\nThe change was ever so slow and gradual; could the parents, anywhere\nalong the line, be mere brutes and the children immortal human beings?\nWould it not be impossible to draw the line? Is it not evident that\nthe ape-man could never grow into immortality, or into the image of an\ninfinitely great and glorious God?\n\nIf evolutionists _could_ give us any convincing evidence that the\nbody of man developed from the brute, they can not prove that the soul\ngrew from nothing to the high mental, moral and spiritual attainments,\ninto the very image of God, and by its own efforts become as immortal\nas God himself.\n\nAfter all, did any theory as ridiculously untrue as evolution ever\nmasquerade as science, or ask to be accepted by thoughtful men? Has it\nas much to support it as the false sciences of alchemy and astrology?\n\nThe brute origin of man, infidelity, agnosticism, modernism, atheism\nand bolshevism, are in harmony, and cooperate in robbing man of heaven\nand the hope of immortality.\n\nIf man believes that he dies as the brute dies, he will soon live as\nthe brute lives, and all that is precious to the heart of man will be\nforever destroyed. We recoil from such a fate, but live in the serene\nassurance that such a thing can never be.\n\n\n\n42. SIN\n\n\nSin is a great fact. It can not be denied. It can not be explained by\nevolution. It is universal. Every race all nations, with all grades of\nintellect and culture, civilized or uncivilized, are cursed with\nsin. All the wrongs, all crimes in the world, all immoralities, are\ndue to sin. Sin causes tremendous destruction of life, property, and\ncharacter.  Why is it universal? When did it originate? Did it\noriginate in all the members of the brute-human race at one time? Did\nsome become sinners, and others remain without sin? Sin must be\ndeveloped, since brutes have no sin. Why not some of the ape-humans\nwithout sin? Does natural selection explain the universal sinfulness\nof man, on the ground that those who did not have this \"improvement\"\nperished? They all died and only sinners were left, hence all\nsurvivors are sinners! Sin makes men more fit, and hence sinners only\nsurvive! Is evolution simply ridiculous, or a crime?\n\nWhen in the \"ascent of man\" did he become a sinner?  A million years\nago? Judging from the pictures of fierce alleged ape-men, it must have\nbeen a long, long time ago. Did all become sinners then? What became\nof the progeny of those who had not secured the attainment of sin? Why\nhave not other members of the monkey family become sinners? Why do we\nnot hang them for murder? Will they yet attain unto sinfulness?\n\nH. G. Wells, the alleged historian, says, p. 954, Outline of Hist.,\n\"If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner,\nthen there had been no first parents, no Eden and no Fall. And, if\nthere had been no Fall, then the entire historical fabric of\nChristianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for an\natonement upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and\nmorality, collapses like a house of cards.\"\n\nEvolution claims that man fell up and not down. It denies almost every\ntruth of religion and the Bible, as well as of experience. \"Man is\nfalling upward, he is his own Savior, he is ever progressing, and has\nno need of a Savior.\" Contrast this with the sublime statements of the\nword of God concerning the creation and the fall of man.\n\nEvolution is charged with explaining all phenomena pertaining to\nman,--soul and body. It exhausts itself in trying to show that the\nbody of man may _possibly_ be developed from the brute. It fails\nmiserably. The problem of accounting for the soul of man with all its\nequipment is so much more difficult, that little or no effort is made\nto account for it, virtually confessing that the much-exploited theory\nof evolution can not possibly be true, when applied to the soul as\nwell as the body.\n\n\n\n43. REDEMPTION\n\n\nEvolution does not account for sin. Much less does it have any cure\nfor sin. If sin marks progress or advancement, of course, its cure\nwould be retrogression.  But how can sin be cured? What answer has\nevolution?  Culture, education, refinement, favorable environment.\nThese are all desirable, but no cure for sin. Some of the most\ncultured, educated and refined, were the greatest monsters that ever\nlived. Wholesale murderers like Nero, Alexander and Napoleon, had a\ngood degree of education and culture. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb,\nwho murdered Robert Franks in Chicago, were among the most brilliant\ngraduates of universities. Friends say they were led on to atheism and\ncrime by the reading of modernist books. No doubt, the doctrine of\nevolution, taught so zealously in the universities, played a large\npart.\n\nHuman efforts and human devices have utterly failed to cure sin. The\nhuman will is too feeble to resist its power.\n\nThe Bible, which evolution undermines, teaches us there is a cure for\nsin. The divine Son of God saves us from our sins, cleanses and\npurifies our natures, and fits us for happiness and service in both\nworlds. Jesus offers the only practical plan of salvation from\nsin. The Bible plan of redemption is the only plan that works.\n\nPaul, a murderer, with his heart full of malignant hate, and his hands\nstained with blood, greedy to imprison men and women, \"breathing out\nthreatening and slaughter,\" looks to Jesus by simple faith, and is\nchanged into a gentle and loving Christian, rejoicing in suffering and\npersecution. He rose to such heights, by the help of Jesus, that he\nloved his enemies, and was willing to be damned, if that would save\ntheir souls. What glorious men the apostles became by the transforming\npower of Christ! What grand men and women the long line of martyrs\nwere. The men and women who have blest the world most, have been\nbelievers in the Bible, and not in evolution. Perhaps a million\nmartyrs have died for Christ. Where are the martyrs for evolution?\n\nAugustine was redeemed from a life of vice and dissipation, blessed\nthe world with his writings, and became one of the greatest leaders of\nthought in all ages. John Bunyan was so profane that the most vicious\nwould cross the street to avoid him. The gospel made him one of the\nholiest of men. His Pilgrim's Progress has been translated into\nhundreds of languages, and read by millions.  John G. Woolley was a\nmaudlin drunkard, intent on taking his own life,--friends, money,\ncharacter, and reputation lost,--but was converted and preached, with\nburning eloquence, the gospel of temperance and prohibition around the\nworld.\n\nElijah P. Brown, a zealous infidel, heard Mr. Moody preach on the love\nof God, found the Savior, and became a brilliant defender of the\nfaith.\n\nChundra Lela, the daughter of a Brahman priest, spent a fortune and\nlived a life of self inflicted torture, seeking salvation at all the\ngreat shrines of India, but found none, until she heard the simple\nstory of Jesus from the lips of a missionary. That matchless name gave\nher victory over sin, and transformed her into a saint and soul-winner\nfor Christ. Maurice Ruben, a successful Jewish merchant of Pittsburgh,\nrejected Christianity and the Jewish religion as well. He was\nconverted, ostracised, persecuted, thrust into an insane asylum\nunjustly, and told he must give up Christ or his wife and child.  He\nchose Christ. His family soon became Christians and joined him in the\ngreat Jewish mission in Pittsburgh.\n\nIn a single night, the mountain floods in India caused the death of\nthe six children of Rev. D.H. Lee,--only one living a short time to\ntell the story. They were all musicians.  Out of the awful silence of\nthat home, Mrs.  Lee sent to American papers, a triumphant pean of\npraise to God. She was sustained by the power of God, so that she\ncould kiss, in loving devotion, the hand that smote her. The Lee\nMemorial Orphanage, of Calcutta, stands as their monument.\n\nHoly Ann, of Canada, was so profane and such a terror, that this name\nwas given her in derision. Touched by Christ, she became so sweet a\nsaint, that all regarded her as holy indeed.\n\nGeo. Long, a denizen of the underworld, a victim of strong drink,\ncocaine, opium and morphine, ruined in body and soul, was redeemed and\nfreed from these desperate vices, and made a successful soul-winner\nfor Christ.\n\nThese are a few of that \"multitude that no man can number\" who have\nbeen delivered from the power of sin, and have overcome by faith in\nJesus.\n\nIf evolution be true it should be no hindrance but a great help. How\nmany drunkards have been saved by a belief in evolution, and how many\nhave been greater soul winners by such belief? How many criminals have\nbeen saved by acceptance of the theory? Many have been made criminals,\nunbelievers, infidels, agnostics and atheists by it; how many have\nbeen made Christians? Can any one be named who has been made a more\nearnest and successful soul winner, or a sweeter saint, by espousal of\nthe doctrine? If one blank page were set aside for a list of all\nvictims of sin and vice and crime, who were redeemed by faith in\nevolution, the space would be wasted. Is there any comfort in it to\nthe dying, any help to the living? Would any evolutionist preacher\nread to the dying, the so-called classic passage from Darwin, showing\nthat every living thing on the tangled bank came from one germ without\nany assistance from God? Is there any choice passage in all their\nbooks, fit to be read to the dying, or to a man in trouble, or in need\nof salvation?  Is there anything to put hope in the breast, or inspire\na man to a holy life? Anything to lift up a man sodden with sin, and\nredeem him from the fetters that bind him?\n\nTo give up the tested power of the gospel and to accept instead, the\nworthless guesses of evolution, ruinous in life and powerless in\ndeath, would be a sorry exchange indeed.\n\n\n\n44. EV. AIDS INFIDELITY AND ATHEISM\n\n\nMany evolutionists frankly declare that the purpose of evolution is to\ndestroy belief in God, or his active control of his creation. Prof.\nH. F. Osborn, of N. Y., a leading evolutionist, says, \"In truth, from\nthe period of the earlier stages of Greek thought, _man has been\neager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the\nidea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature_.\"  Other\nevolutionists openly announce their antagonism to the Bible and\nChristianity. Clarence Darrow, in the Tenn.  trial, called\nChristianity a \"fool religion.\"\n\nDarwinism has been declared an attempt to eliminate God and all\nevidence of design and to substitute the old heathen doctrine of\nchance. With this announced purpose in view, we are not surprised to\nlearn from Prof. J. H.  Leuba that one-half the professors teaching it\ndid not believe in God nor the immortality of the soul; and that there\nis a rapid increase in the number of students who have discarded\nChristianity as they progress in their course,--Freshmen, 15%;\nJuniors, 30%; Seniors, 40 to 45%. Children of Christian homes, taught\nto believe in God and Jesus Christ, are led into infidelity and\natheism rapidly, as they progress in their course. It makes one\nshudder to think what the future will be, if atheism and infidelity\nare taught in the guise of science. And the statistics show that\nevolution is one of the most fruitful sources of unbelief. What the\nstudents are taught today, the world will believe tomorrow. How great\nthe havoc caused by a comparatively few infidel or atheistic\nprofessors!\n\nDr. C. W. Elliott, a Unitarian, announced with apparently great glee,\nthat already the young men and young women do not believe the story of\nthe creation of Adam and Eve. The leaders of Bolshevist Russia said to\nDr.  Sherwood Eddy, with brutal frankness, \"The Communist party, the\nonly party allowed in Russia, is 100% atheistic.  If a man believes in\nGod, he can not be a member of the party.\" Russia is an example of a\ncountry where atheism is taught in the public schools, and we are\nmoving all too fast in the same direction. The Red Army shot to death\n500,000 men in Russia. The horrors of the French Revolution may be\noutdone, if we do not awake to our danger.  Russia is cursed with a\ndoctrine offensive alike to the Christian, the Jew, the Mohammedan and\neven the deist.  In America the same condition may be brought about,\nmore stealthily and more effectually in the name of science.  Indeed,\nthe Russian atheists feel the necessity of adopting the American\nmethod as more effective. An Associated Press dispatch of Dec. 24,\n1924, states that Zinovieff, a Soviet leader, admitted that the\nCommunists had gone too far in their efforts to establish atheism by\n_force_, but he adds, \"_We shall pursue our attacks on Almighty\nGod in due time, and in an appropriate manner. We are confident we\nshall subdue him in his empyrean. We shall fight him wherever he hides\nhimself_.... I have been informed that not only young Communists,\nbut Boy Scouts, are mocking people who are religious. I have also been\ntold that _groups of Boy Scouts have even imprisoned whole\ncongregations in church while they were worshipping_! Our campaign\nagainst God and religion must be carried out in a pedagogic way, not\nby violence or force.\"  Do we want such a situation in America? We are\ndrifting that way.\n\nEvolution has no quarrel with atheism, agnosticism, modernism, or any\nother species of infidelity. _Its quarrel is with Christianity and\nthe Bible_. Why should we wish to harmonize Christianity with\nevolution, when the theory can not possibly be true? Prof. Newman\nsays, \"Readings in Evolution,\" p. 8, \"Contrary to a widespread idea,\nevolution (in what sense?) is by no means incompatible with religion\n(Christianity?).... The majority of thoughtful theologians (whew!) of\nall creeds are in accord with the evolution idea.\"\n\nDr. W. W. Keen says, \"I believe in God and evolution.\"  An infidel, a\ndeist, even a heathen can say that.  To harmonize evolution with\nChristianity is quite a different problem. Prof. Coulter, of Chicago\nUniversity, endeavors to show where \"religion and evolution meet.\"\nBut the \"religion\" is the religion of the infidel, not of the\nChristian. How can a theory which denies the creation of Adam and Eve\nand any intervention and control by the Creator, be harmonized with\nChristianity?\n\nRev. F.E. Clark, President of the World C.E., says, \"The Darwinian\ntheory, whatever it may be called today, has doubtless unsettled many\nminds. A hazy agnosticism has often taken the place of strenuous\nbelief.\"  He is in a position to know.\n\nA beloved friend, president of a prominent college, an evolutionist\nand a modernist, in a letter to the writer, claimed that evolution is\nnearest the truth, and those who believe it are nearest to \"Him who is\nthe Way, the Truth and the Life.\" If this is true, how many\nevolutionists are more spiritual, more earnest, and more successful on\nthat account, in winning souls to Christ?\n\nNo doubt many have been made infidels and atheists.  How many souls\nhave been won to Christ by Osborn, Newman, Conklin, Darrow, Lull,\nShull, Scott, Coulter, Metcalf, Kellogg, Nutting, Thompson, Castle,\nChapin, and all other prominent evolutionists? If evolution is nearest\nthe truth, the number of their converts to Christ should be greatly\nincreased. We await the information, which we do not have at hand, to\nsee if the contention of our friend is correct.\n\nMrs. Aimee Semple McPherson preaches daily in the Angelus Temple, Los\nAngeles, Cal., which seats 5300 people. Often standing room is at a\npremium. Many souls are saved (over 14,000 in 1924), and thousands are\nhealed in answer to prayer. What a tremendous loss to humanity, if the\ngospel of Christ had not saved her from the infidelity and atheism of\nevolution! She writes as follows of her conversion: \"The writer went\nto one of the services being held in my home town, by the Irish\nevangelist, Robert Semple, and entered the meeting _practically an\ninfidel, having studied Darwinism, atheistic theories until faith in\nGod's word was shaken_. Never will those moments be forgotten. One\ncould feel the power of God, the moment one entered the building. Such\nsinging, hands uplifted, faces radiant, such Amens and Hallelujahs,\nsuch power and fervor back of every word that was spoken, such\nexaltation of the deity of Christ, the necessity and power of the\natoning blood, the second Coming of Christ, the power of the Holy\nSpirit to energize and get the believer ready for his coming, gripped\nand stirred the heart.... Never, never, can the writer forget that\nhallowed hour, when, kneeling by a Morris chair in the home of a\nfriend, early in the morning, with uplifted arms, she prayed and felt\nfor the first time, the tremendous inflowing power of the Holy Ghost.\"\nBehold, the power of evolution to ruin, and of Christ to save!\n\nEvolutionists are, as a rule, modernists; and modernists are\nevolutionists, and are reckless in their zeal to destroy the faith of\nthe young committed to their care.  We select the following 3\nillustrations from a single article in the PRESBYTERIAN:\n\n1. \"A father sat _in this office_, a minister above middle life,\nhis eyes full of tears, and his soul full of groans, as he told how he\nhad sent his son, who had been an orderly Christian boy, to a\nsupposedly Christian college.  When the boy returned home, after\ngraduation, he informed his father that through instruction received,\nhe had lost his faith, and believed none of those things he had been\ntaught at home. The father was so shocked and overcome he could make\nno reply, but asked his son to kneel and pray with him as they used to\ndo. The son refused, and said he no longer believed in prayer.\"\n\n2. \"A good Christian father desired to give his young daughter the\nbest educational advantages. She planned to be a missionary. He sent\nher to a well-known college, considered Christian. This college had a\nBible chair, but of the destructive, critical type. The young student\nabsorbed what she was taught. She lost all reverence for the Bible and\nrejected it. She entirely lost her faith which she had learned from\nher father and mother. She gave up her mission plans, and developed\ninto a Socialist.  When about to graduate, she wrote her father\nfrankly, that she had given up the faith he had taught her, and she\nwas going to live with a man without marriage, as she did not believe\nin marriage; The father visited her and protested. She smiled and\ncalled him an old fogy.  She only consented to marriage when\nthreatened with the civil law.\"\n\n3. \"Another case reported to us by another father:--His son, attending\na so-called Christian college, reported that one of the professors\ndeclared that they and himself were hypocrites, because they attended\nchapel every morning where they were told that if they believed and\ndid such things, they would some day go to another world and play on a\nharp. But if they did not, they would burn.  This he declared was all\nbosh. Then he called attention to the teachings in the college, that\n_man in his body developed from a lower animal, but that man had no\nsoul.\"_\n\nYet some colleges and universities ask Christian people to give large\nsums, with no guarantee that evolution, infidelity and atheism will\nnot be taught. Is it any wonder that Christian parents tremble while\ntheir sons and daughters run the gauntlet of infidel professors?\n\n\n\n45. EV. WARS WITH CHRISTIANITY\n\n\nEvolution leads to infidelity and atheism, and is therefore a foe to\nChristianity. It denies the doctrine of special creation, and opposes\nthe religion of the Christian, the Jew and the Mohammedan. Why should\nnot all these religions unite against the false and unsupported theory\nthat would make havoc of them all?\n\nIf evolution could be shown reconcilable with Christianity it would be\nlifted into respectability, but what would be the gain to\nChristianity? The Christian religion is reconcilable with all true\nscience, and hails every true science with joy. The church loves true\nscience, but hates a lie that poses as the truth. Christianity is\nreadily reconcilable with the true sciences of Astronomy and\nChemistry, but we do not try to reconcile it with the corresponding\nfalse sciences of astrology and alchemy. Why should we be concerned\nabout such a reconciliation, since all the evidence offered in favor\nof evolution is not worthy of serious consideration? The facts hotly\ncontest every guess. There is no conflict between Christianity and\nscience. But evolution is not science. It is not knowledge.  It is not\ntruth. It is not proved. It is not certain. It is not probable. It is\nnot possible. How can the serious student escape the conviction that\nevolution has not one chance out of a thousand, or even out of a\nmillion, to be a possible theory, and none whatever to be a probable\nor proven theory? It offers not one convincing argument.  The evidence\nagainst the theory shows that it has not yet been proven and never can\nbe.\n\nThe present population of the globe shows the unity of man in the days\nof Noah, and that the human race could not have begun 2,000,000 years\nago, nor 1,000,000, nor 100,000, nor even 10,000. And no evidence that\nthe evolutionist can bring to bear _now or hereafter_ can ever\nset aside this mathematical demonstration. This one argument is\nsufficient to shatter evolution, if there were no more. But the whole\nfifty arguments in this book rush to the support of this one. They all\nharmonize with the Bible statements, but not one of them with the\nfalse and baneful theory of evolution. And no erroneous guess that\nthey can make will escape mathematical detection. Why should we\ngratify the clamor of evolutionists, and seek to reconcile\nChristianity with a theory so manifestly false?  To be worthy of\nacceptance, it must satisfactorily answer every one of the fifty\narguments in this book and many more. Can it do so?\n\nEvolution carried to a logical conclusion would destroy every thing\nprecious to the heart of a Christian. It denies the real inspiration\nof the Bible. It makes Moses a liar.  It denies the story of creation,\nand substitutes an impossible guess. It denies miracles, the\nprovidence of God, the creation of man and beast, and God's government\nand control of the world. It laughs at the Virgin Birth and makes\nChrist a descendant of the brute on both sides.  It denies his deity,\nhis miracles, his resurrection from the dead. It joins hands with\nagnosticism, modernism, and other forms of infidelity and atheism and\ngives them the strongest support they have ever had. All these hail\nevolution's advent with exceeding great joy. It has the closest\naffinity with the wildest and worst theories ever proposed.\n\nIts writers and proponents turn infidel and atheist.  Its teachers and\nadvocates lose their belief in God and the immortality of the\nsoul. The young men and women who are taught, abandon the faith of\ntheir fathers and join the forces of unbelief. To be sure, some are\nsaved by inconsistency, and still maintain their faith, but the havoc\nis great. It would strip Christ of his Deity, reduce him to the\ndimensions of a man, and make his religion powerless to save. The men\nwho tore the seamless coat from the dying Christ did a praiseworthy\nact, in comparison to those who would strip him of his deity and\nglory, for these are the garments of God!\n\nThe ruffians at the foot of the cross gambled for a mere human\ngarment, but there are evolutionists who would \"trample under foot the\nblood of the Son of God, and count it an unholy thing.\" Those who\nwould rob the world's redeemer of his power and divinity, while\nspeaking patronizingly in praise of his human traits, do but insult\nhim with the vilest slander, which makes the derision of Calvary seem\nlike praise.\n\nWe were not surprised to learn that, in the Tenn.  trial, evolution\nwas defended by agnostics, who made their chief attack on the Bible\nand revealed religion; and the school, the home and religion were\ndefended by men of high Christian character. Had Mr. Darrow as\nearnestly defended Christianity and Mr. Bryan as earnestly opposed it,\nmillions would have held up their hands in astonishment. But the\nalignment was natural, and opened the eyes of multitudes to the fact\nthat evolution is a friend to infidelity and a foe to Christianity.\nTheir objection to prayer during the sessions of the Court shows that\nthey hated what God loves.\n\nChristianity withstood ten fiery persecutions, lasting 300 years, at\nthe hands of the Roman Empire, the mistress of the world. The church\nwas purified, and grew and multiplied. Numerous heresies arose but all\nyielded to the truth. Sin and corruption, formality and worldliness,\nfailed to hinder the triumphant march of the church of God.\n\nInfidelity made a fierce attack in the eighteenth century in its own\nname, and lost. But the most dangerous attack ever made is on, by\nevolution claiming the name of science and modernism claiming the name\nof religion.  This f. a. d. is truly for a day. God will win. Truth\nwill live and error will die. But too many precious souls will be lost\nunless the world awakes to see its danger soon.\n\nMr. Bryan, in his last message, said: \"Christ has made of death a\nnarrow starlit strip between the companionship of yesterday and the\nreunion of tomorrow.  Evolution strikes out the stars, and deepens the\ngloom that enshrouds the tomb.\".... \"Do these evolutionists stop to\nthink of the crime they commit when they take faith out of the hearts\nof men and women and lead them out into a starless night?\"\n\nEvolution wars with the religion of the Jews also.  It attacks the Old\nTestament, dear alike to Christian and Jew. The Jews were the chosen\npeople of God, and have played a large part in the history of the\nworld. We gladly clasp hands with them against the common foe. David\nspeaks for Jews and Christians in the 8th Psalm. In contrast to\nevolution, which degrades man to the level of the brute, he declares\nthat man is but a little lower than God, (Heb. Elohim). The revisers\nhad the courage so to translate it. David under inspiration wrote\nbetter than he knew, and in absolute harmony with modern science:\n\n\"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and\nthe stars which thou hast ordained, what is man (how great must he be)\nthat thou are mindful of him (among thy great and marvelous works)?\nAnd the son of man that thou are a companion to him? For thou hast\nmade him but little lower than God, and crownest him with glory and\nhonor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands;\nthou hast put all things under his feet; all sheep and oxen, yea, and\nthe beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea,\nwhatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.\"  All animals\nconfess the dominion of man since the strongest and fiercest flee from\nhis face. Who would prefer the \"string of stuff\" that would place man\nbelow the brute, to the lofty description of the Hebrew Psalmist\nplacing him a little lower than God?\n\nHon. William J. Bryan, when attending the Presbyterian General\nAssembly in Columbus, Ohio, in 1925, enclosed, in a letter to the\nwriter, a copy of his address in John Wanamaker's Church,\nPhiladelphia, on evolution and modernism, from which we select the\nfollowing:\n\n\"All the modernists are evolutionists and their hypothesis of creation\ngives man a brute ancestry and makes him the apex of a gradual\ndevelopment extending over millions of years. This hypothesis contains\nno place for, and has no need of, a plan of salvation. It is only a\nstep from this philosophy to the philosophy of the atheist who\nconsiders man 'a bundle of tendencies inherited from the lower\nanimals,' and regards sin as nothing more serious than a disease that\nshould be treated rather than punished. One of the gravest objections\nto the doctrine of the modernists is that it ignores sin in the sense\nin which the Bible describes sin. Modernists ignore the cause of sin,\nthe effects of sin, and the remedy for sin. They worship the intellect\nand overlook the heart, 'out of which are the issues of life.' No\nevangelical church has ever endorsed a single doctrine of the\nmodernists.\n\n\"Evolution is the basis of modernism. Carried to its logical\nconclusion, it annihilates revealed religion. It made an avowed\nagnostic of Darwin (see in his 'Life and Letters' a letter written on\nthis subject just before his death); it has made agnostics of millions\nand atheists of hundreds of thousands, yet Christian taxpayers, not\nawake to its benumbing influence, allow Darwinism to be injected into\nthe minds of immature students, many of whom return from college with\ntheir spiritual enthusiasm chilled if not destroyed.\n\n\"When we protest against the teaching of this tommy-rot by instructors\npaid by taxation, they accuse us of stifling conscience and\ninterfering with free speech. Not at all; let the atheist think what\nhe pleases and say what he thinks to those who are willing to listen\nto him, but he cannot rightly demand pay from the taxpayers for\nteaching their children what they do not want taught. The hand that\nwrites the pay check rules the school. As long as Christians must\nbuild Christian colleges in which to teach Christianity, atheists\nshould be required to build their own colleges if they desire to teach\natheism.\n\n\"With from one to three millions of distinct species in the animal and\nvegetable world, not a single species has been traced to\nanother. Until species in the animal and vegetable world can be linked\ntogether, why should we assume without proof that man is a blood\nrelative of any lower form of life? Those who become obsessed with the\nidea that they have brute blood in their veins devote their time to\nsearching for missing links in the hope of connecting man with life\nbelow him; why do they prefer a jungle ancestry to creation by the\nAlmighty for a purpose and according to a divine plan? Why will they\ntravel around the world to find a part of a skull or remnants of a\nskeleton when they will not cross the street to save a soul?\n\n\"How can intelligent men and women underestimate the Christ? He is no\nlonger a wandering Jew with a few followers; He is the great fact of\nhistory and the growing figure of all time--there is no other growing\nfigure in all the world today. Men--the greatest of them--rise and\nreign and pass away; only CHRIST reigns and remains. They shall not\ntake away our Lord. The Christian Church will not permit the degrading\nof its founder; it will defend at all times, everywhere and in every\nway, the historical Christ. It believes that 'there is none other name\nunder heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.' No diminutive\nMessiah can meet the religious need of the world today and throughout\nthe centuries.  Christ for all and forever, is the slogan of the\nchurch.  There has been apostasy in every age; attacks upon\nChristianity have been disguised under cloaks of many kinds, but it\nhas withstood them all--'The hammers are shattered but the anvil\nremains.' The church will not yield now; it will continue its defense\nof the Bible, the Bible's God and the Bible's Christ until 'every knee\nshall bow and every tongue confess.'\n\n\"While it resists the attacks upon the integrity of God's Word and the\ndivinity of the Saviour, it will pray that those who are now making\nthe attack may come under the influence of, and yield their hearts to,\nHim whose call is to all, whose hand is all power and who promises to\nbe with His people 'always, even unto the end of the world,' The\nApostles' Creed which has expressed the faith of the Christian Church\nfor so many centuries shall not be emasculated by modernism.\n\n  \"'Faith of our fathers! living still\nIn spite of dungeon, fire and sword;\nO how our hearts beat high with joy\n  Whene'er we hear that glorious word--\nFaith of our fathers! holy faith,\nWe will be true to thee till death'!\"\n\n\n\n46. CAMOUFLAGE OF TERMS\n\n\nDuring the late world war, objects were concealed and the enemy\ndeceived, by \"camouflage.\" Many undertake to deceive or to hide their\nmeaning by a camouflage of terms. These terms are chosen to conceal or\ndeceive.  Terms that suggest advance, improvement, learning, science,\netc., are used to describe unworthy theories, beliefs and\nmovements. It is an unfair trick to win and often meets with\nundeserved success.\n\nEVOLUTION in the sense of growth and development, is true of a\npart of animal and plant life, and in this sense is undisputed. Some\nspeak of the growth of a child and of all progress, as evolution. In\nthe sense at issue, it means the development of all the 3,000,000\nspecies of animals and plants, from one or a few primordial germs,\nwithout design or intelligence, or the aid of a Creator.  A\ndistinguished surgeon declares that evolution from the monkey is mere\nnon-sense but that life is a constant evolution,--two senses in the\nsame sentence. Such confusion of meaning brings science into\ndisrepute. The meaning is shifted to suit.\n\nSCIENCE means knowledge. We are glibly told that science\nteaches the evolution of man when it teaches nothing of the kind. A\nmere theory is not science until proven. A man does not become a\nscientist by advocating an unproven theory, but by making some notable\ncontribution to knowledge. These self-appointed scientists recklessly\ndeclare that the \"consensus\" of science favors evolution. We oppose\nevolution not because it _is_ science, but because it is\n_not_ science. There is no conflict between Christianity and real\nscience, but a fight to the death with \"science falsely so called.\"\n\nRELIGION is often taken to mean deism, or infidelity as well as\nChristianity. They show us \"where evolution and religion meet,\"\nprovided deism or infidelity is religion, but not, if Christianity is\nreligion,--an inexcusable confusion of terms.\n\nLAW is sometimes spoken of as if it had intelligence and\npower. Sometimes as a subordinate deity, or agent of God, or an\nindefinite principle. Darwin says:--\"Plants and animals have all been\nproduced by laws (?) acting around us.\" That is impossible, since\n\"laws\" can produce nothing. He evidently gives to laws the credit that\nbelongs to God.\n\nNATURE, in like manner, is often used as a substitute for God,\nto avoid the mention of His name.\n\nMODERNISM is a fine sounding word, suggestive of learning and\nculture and the last word in science, but doubts or denies many of the\nessential doctrines of the Christian religion. It is infidelity pure\nand simple and of the most dangerous kind, camouflaged under this\nattractive name. Who can deny the statement that the only thing modern\nabout modernism is its hypocrisy? It is ancient infidelity pretending\nto be a Christian view.  Bearing the Christian flag, it attacks\nChristianity. Modernists are evidently ashamed of a name which fitly\ndescribes their views, and seek another. Infidels have tried to win\nunder their own name. They have failed. Will they succeed under the\ncamouflaged name of modernism?  Camouflaged under an attractive name,\nmodernists doubt or deny the real inspiration of the Bible, the Virgin\nbirth of Jesus, his deity, his miracles, his bodily resurrection, the\nresurrection of the dead, and his personal second coming to judge the\nquick and the dead. Some modernists reject a part of these great\ntruths, and some reject all.\n\nLIBERAL is another term stolen by infidels ashamed of their own\nname. They are no more liberal in a good sense than others.\n\nA RATIONALIST is not entitled to the term, because he is often\nmore innocent of reasoning than his opponents.  Reason is not opposed\nto revelation. We believe in an inspired revelation, because it is\nreasonable to do so. Rationalism is another camouflage for\ninfidelity. We can have some respect for an honest professed skeptic,\nbut how can we respect a man who insists on adding hypocrisy to his\ninfidelity, that, by so doing, he may make greater havoc of the\nchurch? Modernists give such a diluted interpretation to inspiration,\nto the statements of Scripture, and the Apostles' Creed, and the\ncreeds of the churches, that all may mean little or nothing, and the\nfloodgates of infidelity and atheism are opened wide.\n\nIt has been truly said, \"If the Bible is not really inspired, it is\nthe greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind; for, from lid to lid,\nit claims to be the word of God.\" Likewise, if Moses was not inspired,\nhe was the greatest liar of history.\n\nEvery variety of infidel and species of atheist will rejoice, if\nevolution be accepted,-whether modernists, liberals, rationalists, or\nsimple unbelievers on their way to the bottomless pit. If evolution\nwins, Christianity loses and the church fails.\n\nWe hope that scientists will consign to innocuous desuetude their\ncamouflaged sesquipedalian vocabularies, and tell us what they mean in\nshort words, so we all may know what they say.\n\n\n\n47. WHAT ARE WE TO BELIEVE?\n\n\nSome would have us believe there is no God; or that matter is eternal;\nor that matter was evolved out of nothing; or that all things came by\nchance; or that there is nothing but matter,--no God, no spirit, no\nmind, no soul.\n\nSome would have us believe that God created nebulous matter, and then\nceased to control the universe; that life developed spontaneously;\nthat species developed by chance, or natural selection, or by a\npowerless \"law,\" from one primordial germ. Others say that all the\ncountless exhibitions of design by a matchless Intelligence, are to be\nexplained by a causo-mechanical theory, which means the theory of\nblind unintelligent chance, without purpose or design or interference\nof God. Some say that God may have created one germ or at most 4 or 5,\nand that 3,000,000 species of plants and animals developed from this\nmicroscopic beginning. We are asked to believe that some plants became\nanimals, or some animals became plants, or that all plants and animals\ncame from the one germ they allowed God to create. They say that all\nspecies developed by growth, but do not explain why we still have the\none-celled amoeba, the microscopic bacilli of plant life, and the\nmicroscopic species of animal life. Many geologic species are largest\nat the beginning; many ancient animals were much larger than their\nsuccessors; and the reptilian age was noted for animals of enormous\nsize. Yet they want us to believe that growth is universal.\n\nThey ask us to believe, without proof, that some marine animals\nevoluted into amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, some\nreptiles developed hair and became mammals, and some reptiles\ndeveloped feathers and wings and became birds; some mammals became\nmonkeys, and some monkeys became men. For evidence of this, there is\nnot a single connecting link to show the transformation.  Geology\nfurnishes no fossils of the millions and billions of connecting links\nthat must have existed.  For the scheme would require not only\nmillions of links between man and the monkey, but also millions\nbetween each of the 8 great changes from matter to man. Yet we are\nasked to accept these fantastic and impossible speculations as\n\"science,\" though it lead to infidelity and atheism and bolshevism and\nanarchy and chaos, wreck religion, make havoc of the church, and send\ncountless souls to the lost world. What wonder that the soul recoils\nwith horror from such an atheistic theory.\n\n\n\n48. WHAT CAN WE DO?\n\n\nEvolution, leading to infidelity and atheism, is taught in many\nuniversities, colleges and high schools, and even in the lower grades\nof the public schools. It is taught also in some theological\nseminaries. It is proclaimed in some pulpits. Some of its devotees,\nwho have slipped into places of power and influence, urge it with a\nzeal worthy of a better cause. The public libraries are crammed with\nbooks teaching it, with few, if any, opposed. Strange to say, it is\nadvocated by some religious newspapers, along with modernism and other\nvarieties of infidelity. Some secular newspapers seem eager to\npublish, on the front page, attacks on orthodoxy, and articles\nfavoring the wildest claims of evolution. They call evolution science!\nWhat are we going to do about it? Shall we supinely submit, or do all\nin our power to oppose, check and suppress so pernicious a theory?\nWhat can we do?\n\nWe can refuse to patronize or endow such institutions as teach this or\nother forms of infidelity and atheism. We can aid those only that are\nsafe. Much money that was given by devout Christians to colleges and\nseminaries, has been prostituted to teach what the donors hated, and\nto do great harm. The faculty and trustees can do much to eliminate\nfalse teaching, if they will. Use all possible pressure to bring this\nabout.\n\nEvolution is taught in many high schools supported by the taxpayers'\nmoney. This should not be tolerated.  Text books declare that man is\ndescended from the brute, as if there were no doubt about it! Laws\nshould be enacted and courts appealed to, to protect the youth. The\nrecent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the\nOregon case, gives strong hope that the teaching of evolution would\nnot be permitted, if a case were carried up to the highest court. It\nshould be done. If Christianity cannot be taught in the public\nschools, must we submit to the teaching of infidelity and atheism in\nthe name of science? Intolerable outrage! In New York 15,000 people,\non a recent Sunday, shouted for atheistic bolshevism, and condemned\nthe United States government.  A theory that encourages such a belief\nshould not be taught. When the people awake to see the baneful\neffects, they will smite the fraud to the earth. Protests should be\nmade to Boards of Education, superintendents, and all in\nauthority. The power of public opinion should be brought to bear. Two\nstates already have forbidden such instruction, and others will, no\ndoubt, follow. The Associated Press, in this morning's papers, calls\nthe struggle a contest between religion and science, and thousands of\nshallow thinkers will believe that evolution is really science!\n\nWe quote from Mauro's \"Evolution at the Bar,\" p. 71: \"A parent writing\nto a religious periodical, tells of a text book brought home by his\nseven-year-old boy, the title of which was, 'Home Geography for\nPrimary Grades.' Discussing the subject of birds, this text book for\nprimary grades says: 'Ever so long ago, their grandfathers were not\nbirds at all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor\nfeathers. These grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail,\nand jaws with teeth. After a time feathers grew on their bodies, and\ntheir front legs were changed for flying. These were strange looking\ncreatures. There are none living like them now.'\" Would any one who\nwould teach a little child, the extremely improbable story that\nreptiles became birds, hesitate to teach that monkeys became men and\nthat the story of creation was false?\n\nMuch can be done by the church authorities in refusing to license or\nordain men who believe in any species of infidelity, or who have\nattended heretical seminaries.  They should give their consent for\ncandidates to attend only colleges, universities or seminaries that\ncan be trusted.  Congregations should know, before they call a pastor,\nthat he is orthodox. Ministers are to preach the Gospel not\ninfidelity.\n\nTaboo all heretical religious papers; support those that defend the\ntruth. Let infidels maintain infidel papers and build infidel\ncolleges. Not one dollar to propagate infidelity!  Make your one short\nconsecrated life count for truth and righteousness. Many Christians\nare guilty of the great sin of indifference. In this greatest of all\ncontests in which the Church was ever engaged, no one should be a\nslacker.\n\nMany public libraries have 20 to 50 books in favor of evolution, and\nbut one or two, if any, opposed. If dangerous books, like Wells'\n\"Outline of History\", McCabe's \"A. B. C. of Evolution\", and the works\nof Darwin, who doubted his own theory, and of Romanes, who renounced\nevolution and embraced Christ, can not be eliminated, libraries, in\nall fairness and in the interest of truth, should have an equal number\nin reply. Insist that librarians get a copy of this book, and other\nanti-evolution books, especially those mentioned herein; also other\ngood books.\n\nThe author and publisher of this book will give 50% commission for\nselling it, and will mail two copies for $1.00 to all who will become\nagents. If you can't be an agent, you will do great good by securing\nanother. A copy should be in the hands of every student, so he can\ndiscuss evolution with his teacher; and in the hands of every teacher,\nlawyer, doctor, minister, lawmaker or other professional man, of every\nparent whose children are liable to be taught the dangerous\ndoctrine. It will be useful in removing error and in promoting the\ntruth. Agents should canvass every school, college, university,\nseminary; every convention, conference; every religious and\neducational gathering. A copy should be in every library.\n\nEvery dollar of profit from the sale of this book will be given to\nMissions, to be loaned perpetually to help build churches, and to\npreach the Gospel in the secular newspapers of the world, and to\ndistribute this book free.  Every $1000 so loaned to churches at 5%\ncompound interest, in 300 years, will, together with the accrued\ninterest, aid in building 8,229,024 churches, by a loan of $1000 each\nfor 5 years, and the new principal at the end of 300 years will be\n$2,273,528,000.\n\nAfter four struggles, the writer was led to give the one-tenth, then\nthe unpaid or \"stolen\" tenth (Mai. 3:8), then to consecrate the\nnine-tenths, and, lastly, to give all above an economical living. Many\nanother consecrated Christian, on fire for God and burning with fury\nagainst all forms of infidelity, can do incalculable good by sending\nthis book free to as many libraries, students, teachers, ministers,\nlawyers and doctors as possible. For this purpose, the publisher will\nmail the book to large numbers, for 20c each; your $1 sends a $1 book\nto 5. For $2000, for example, a copy will be mailed to the 10,000\nministers of the Presbyterian church, U.S.A.; for $4,000, to the\n20,000 pastors of the Methodist Episcopal church; for $1000, a copy to\n5000 public libraries in the United States and elsewhere; or to 5000\nstudents, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, lawmakers, etc.\nSmaller sums in proportion.  What great good a heroic giver, in every\nland, could do with $1000 or $10,000 or $100,000! With 1,000,000\ncopies, we would wake the world!\n\nA Canadian farmer gives $1000 to mail one to 5000 Canadian ministers\nand libraries. Who will give $2,000 to send one to 10,000 lawmakers in\nU.S.?\n\n--Ministers, students, teachers, parents, yes, ALL are urged to be\nagents, employ sub-agents, earn wages, and do good. To agents,\nbooksellers, libraries, churches, S.S.'s, organizations and societies\nneeding funds, 2 to 25 mailed to any land, for 50c each cash; 25 or\nmore, 40c--60% profit; 100 or more, 30c--70% profit! Books are the\nbest outfit,--try 25 (show p. 76). To periodicals (for sale or\npremium), 30c. Special terms to general or national agents, speakers,\npublishers, colleges, seminaries, etc.  Editors are hereby given\npermission FREE to use any selections. Add to each: From 'EVOLUTION\nDISPROVED' (cloth $1) by per. the author and pub., Rev. W. A.\nWilliams, Camden, N.J. _Mail marked selections and reviews_.\n\nThe fight is on. Only about 2% of the members of evangelical churches,\nit is said, are modernists and evolutionists.  Let the rest assert\ntheir rights and say: \"Common honesty requires you to restore to\northodoxy the institutions you have purloined. We demand them back.\nHenceforth you shall not steal our colleges, seminaries and public\nschools, and make our children infidels and atheists.  You shall not,\nwith our consent, capture our pulpits, and strip the world's Redeemer\nof his power and glory.\"\n\n\n\n49. PROBLEMS FOR REVIEW\n\n\nThe following problems, when solved by the reader, will deepen the\nconviction that evolution is impossible.  The erroneous guesses by\nevolutionists may be checked up and disproved by mathematical\nproblems. No stronger proof could well be devised. For pattern\nsolutions, refer to the preceding text. A reward will be given to the\nfirst person who points out a material error. Test, verify or correct\nthe following solutions:--\n\n1. If the first human pair lived 2,000,000 years ago, as the\nevolutionists claim, and the population has doubled itself in every\n1612.51 years (one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase), what would\nbe the present population of the globe? Ans. 18,932,139,737,991\nfollowed by 360 figures; or 18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion,\ndecillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion,\ndecillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion,\nvigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.\n\n2. If the first human pair lived 100,000 years ago (a period much less\nthan evolution required), what Would be the present population at the\nsame low rate of increase? Ans. 4,660,210,253,138,204,000; or\n2,527,570,733 times as many as are living now.\n\n3. At the above rate of increase, how many human beings would have\nsurvived in the 5177 years since Noah?  Ans. 9. How many Jews, in the\n3850 years since Jacob's marriage? Ans. 5.\n\n4. If the human race doubled its numbers every 168.3 years since Noah\nbecame a father (5177 years) what would be the population of the\nglobe? Ans. 1,804,187,000,--just what it is.\n\n5. If the Jews doubled their numbers every 161.251 years since Jacob's\nmarriage (3850 years ago), how many Jews would there have been in\n1922? Ans. 15,393,815, just the number reported.\n\n6. What guess of man's age can stand the test of mathematics? Ans. Not\na single guess ever made assigning a great age to man,--nothing\ngreater than the age indicated by the Scriptures; 2,000,000, or\n1,000,000, or 100,000 years are clearly out of the question.\n\n7. If life began 60,000,000 years ago, and the human race 2,000,000\nyears ago, how much sub-normal should have been the brain and mind of\nman at that time? Ans.  1/30 or 3-1/3%; or 96-2/3% normal; or 1450\nc.c., counting 1500 c.c. normal,--more nearly normal than many nations\nnow.\n\n8. How much if life began 500,000,000 years ago?  Ans. .4%; or 99.6%\nnormal; or 1494 c.c., far more c.c.  than a large part of mankind can\nclaim.\n\n9. If man had, in 58,000,000 years, developed only the same skull\ncapacity as the other members of the simian family (not over 600\nc.c.), how much must he have gained in 2,000,000 years? Ans. 900 c.c.,\nwhich is a development 43.5 times as rapid in 2,000,000 years as in\nthe 58,000,000 years preceding. How could that be?\n\n10. If life began 500,000,000 years ago, how would the rapidity of\nskull and brain development in 2,000,000 years compare with that of\nthe 498,000,000 years preceding?  Ans. 373.5 times as great.\n\n11. If the skull of the pithecanthropus was two-thirds normal, or 1000\nc.c., how many years ago must it have lived, in case life began\n60,000,000 years ago?  Ans. 20,000,000; in case life began 500,000,000\nyears ago? Ans. 166,666,666.\n\n12. If the Piltdown \"man\" had a normal skull capacity of 1070 c.c., as\nclaimed, how long ago did he live, if life began 60,000,000 years ago?\nAns. 17,200,000 years. If 500,000,000 years ago? Ans. 143,333,333\nyears.\n\n13. If the Neanderthal man had a capacity of 1408 c.c. (assigned by\nDr. Osborn), how many years ago must he have lived if 60,000,000 years\nhave passed since life began? Ans. 3,680,000; if 500,000,000 years?\nAns.  30,666,666. If 1800 c.c. be taken as normal instead of 1500\nc.c. as some insist, these great periods since these \"ape-men\" existed\nmust be enormously increased, in some cases 50%.\n\n14. If, on the other hand, the pithecanthropus really lived 750,000\nyears ago, what, with normal development, should have been its skull\ncapacity, if life began 60,000,000 ago? Ans. 98.75%; or 1481 c.c. If\nlife began 500,000,000 years ago? Ans. 99.85%; or 1497.77 c.c. In\neither case, practically normal.\n\n15. If the Piltdown \"man\" lived 150,000 years ago, as claimed, what\nshould have been his brain capacity, if life has lasted 60,000,000\nyears? Ans. 99.75%; or 1496.25 c.c. If 500,000,000 years? Ans. 99.97%;\nor 1499.55 c.c. Very nearly normal.\n\nThe above problems prove either that these alleged links could not\nhave lived in the periods assigned them, or else they must have had a\nbrain capacity almost normal, and far greater than assigned to them.\n\n16. The habitable countries of the world-total 50,670,837 sq. mi. If\nwe estimate that the garden of Eden occupied 10,000 sq. mi. or\n6,400,000 acres, there would be 5067 such areas in the world. What\nchance would Moses have, not knowing, to guess the correct location?\nAns. 1 chance out of 5067,--virtually none at all.\n\n17. If Moses, not knowing the order of creation, enumerates 11 great\nevents in their correct scientific order, what chance had he to guess\nthe correct order?  Ans. I chance out of 39,916,800. If 15 great\nevents, as some biblical scholars point out? Ans. I chance out of\n1,307,674,368,000. (Solve by Permutation.)\n\n18. If there are now 1,500,000 species of animals, coming from a\nsingle primordial germ or cell which existed 60,000,000 years ago, how\nmany species of animals should have arisen or matured in the last 6000\nyears?  Ans. 3000; or one every two years. If life has existed\n500,000,000 years, 360 new animal species were due in the last 6000\nyears. Evolutionists declare they do not know that a single new\nspecies has arisen in the last 6000 years! Even Darwin said, \"Not one\nchange of species into another is on record.\"\n\n19. If the skeletons of 200,000 prehistoric horses were found in a\nsingle locality, Lyons, France, how many skeletons of prehistoric man\nshould we expect? Ans.  Many millions. How many are there? Not a\nsingle or undisputed skeleton of an ape-man!\n\n20. If each of the two eyes and ears as well as the nose and the mouth\noccupy, on an average, one-thousandth part of the surface of the body,\nwhat, if we exclude God's design, is the mathematical probability that\nthey would appear where they are? Ans. .OO1 x .OO1 x .001 x .001 x\n.001 x .001; =.000,000,000,000,000,001; or 1 chance in a billion\nbillion! (Solved by Compound Probability.)\n\n21. Evolutionists claim at least 8 great transmutations from matter to\nman: matter, plant-life, invertebrates, vertebrates, fishes,\namphibians, reptiles, mammals and man. If we make the extremely\ngenerous estimate of 60% to represent the probability of each\ntransmutation, what is the compound probability that all would take\nplace? Ans. 1 chance in 60, which means an extreme improbability.\n\n22. If there is 1 chance in 10 that each transmutation has taken\nplace, which is far more than the evidence warrants, what fraction\nrepresents the probability that all these great changes have occurred?\nAns. .1 raised to the eighth power, or .00000001; or 1 chance in\n100,000,000.\n\n23. If the probability of a change of one member of one species into\nanother species be expressed by .1 (an over-estimate), what fraction\nmarks the probability of a million members making the same change?\nAns.  .1 raised to the millionth power; or 1 preceded by 999,999\ndecimal ciphers; or a common fraction with 1 as a numerator and a\nmillion figures as a denominator; or 1 chance out of a number\nexpressed by 1,000,000 figures, which would fill 3 volumes like this\nbook. Such changes were absolutely impossible, but necessary for\nevolution.\n\n24. If the scattered remains of the pithecanthropus were found in the\nsand only 40 ft. below the surface, and the rate of accumulation were\nno greater than the slow accretions that buried the mountain city of\nJerusalem 20 feet deep in 1900 years, what would be the extreme age of\nthese remains? Ans. 3800 years, instead of 750,000 years.\n\n25. If the Heidelberg jaw was found in sand 69 ft. deep, what would be\nits maximum age, estimated in the same way? Ans. 6555 years instead of\n375,000.  Who believes that sand in a river valley would accumulate no\nmore rapidly than dust on the mountains? Or that it took 750,000 or\neven 375,000 years to cover with sand these precious remains such a\nshallow depth? A few centuries at most would account for such a depth.\nCan there be any doubt that these were abnormal bones of historic man\nand brute?\n\n26. Did any other false theory that ever posed as science, have less\nto support its claims than evolution?\n\n27. Believing that a Christian should give to the Lord all above his\nnecessities, none of the profits on this book will be retained by the\npublisher, but all will be donated to missions, to be perpetually\nloaned to churches, and to preach the gospel through the secular\nnewspapers, of the world, and to aid in the free distribution of this\nbook as explained on pages 116 and 117. How many churches will every\n$1000 together with the compound interest thereon, help to build in\n300 years, if the average loan to each church is $1000 for 5 years at\n5%? Ans. 8,229,024; and the new principal will then be $2,273,528,000.\n\n28. How could $1000 be given to do more good than for these three\npurposes?\n\n29. \"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world\nand lose his own soul?\"\n\n30. What shall it profit a man, if he wins great fame as a scientist,\npersuades a great multitude to accept evolution, infidelity and\natheism, and leads a great company to the lost world, by destroying\ntheir faith in God and in Jesus Christ?\n\n\n\n50. THE SUPREMACY OF JESUS\n\n\nFrom far-off Australia comes this sermon by Rev. R.  Ditterich. What\nmore fitting climax in honor of Christ, whose worshipers belt the\nglobe? \"Christ is All,\" a pean of praise, which has been sung both\nsides the sea, and published in three Hymnals and over sixty song\nbooks, will close this volume, dedicated to the glory of God.\n\n_Text: \"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living\nGod.\"--Matt. 16.16._\n\nJesus asked a great question, and Peter made a great reply. No\nprophet, no priest, no king, no patriarch of Israel had ever been\ngreeted in such fashion. Of nobody else in the world are these words\nspoken today. How pure must have been the life, how majestic the\npersonality, how wise the utterances, how divine the deeds, that\ncompelled this thrilling answer from the apostle's lips. Surely\nsomething really wonderful beyond all previous Hebrew experience was\nnecessary before Jews could bring themselves to acknowledge any man,\nhowever exalted, as divine. The miracle of winning such a confession\nis testimony to the sovereign greatness of Jesus.\n\nWe, too, have to answer the same question, and there are facts which\nlead us to the same great confession of faith.\n\n\nFIVE TREMENDOUS FACTS\n\n1. Jesus, a peasant, is hailed today as King by people speaking 750\nlanguages and dialects, in all climes, and of all classes. People of\nevery color raise to Him the song of praise and crown Him \"Lord of\nall.\" There is nothing like this in all history. No other has ever\napproached this degree of sovereignty. His kingdom pervades the\nworld. It is a fact that challenges thought.  No world conqueror has\never had such an empire. Beside this the royalty of men like\nAlexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon, and more modern aspirants is\nshadowy and ghostlike. His is an abiding and a spiritual dominion.\n\n2. Though an unlettered peasant, Jesus has become the world's greatest\nteacher. For all our best knowledge of God, for the revelation of\ndivine Fatherly love, for our highest ideals of virtue, for man's most\nglorious hope, people on all sides look to Him. Not only men of the\nhighest rank, but men of the richest culture sit at His feet. The\npurest souls sit at His feet. His golden rule will never be\nsupplanted. His name has become the synonym for all that is true and\ngracious. To be Christ-like must ever remain man's highest ideal.\n\n3. He was a Jew, and yet He founded the brotherhood of man. In His day\nJews had no dealings with Samaritans.  But Jesus had. Jews were fenced\noff from all other nations in the most exclusive way. But His heart\nwas all-inclusive, and He broke down all walls that separated class\nfrom class as well as nation from nation. His thought was\nuniversal. His spirit was international. He founded a kingdom based,\nas Napoleon said, not on force but on love, and love is universal. It\nleaps over mountains, it spans oceans. It speaks in all tongues. The\ntrue League of Nations and the real disarmament are part of His plan\nfor the world. He was son of Israel only incidentally.  Essentially He\nwas Son of Man--the true brother of all mankind.\n\n4. His life was short, but it changed the world. No one ever did so\nmuch in so short a time. At the most his years numbered thirty-three\nyears, and of these only a little less than three were devoted to\npublic ministry, and these were spent in a conquered province of the\nRoman Empire. He was killed by aliens at the request of His own\ncountrymen. And yet time is reckoned from His birth. The very terms\nB.C. and A.D. have great significance.  He divides not only time, but\nalso space. The nations are Christian and non-Christian, which is\nabout equal to saying, civilized and barbarous. One has only to think\nof the ideals and practices of pagan people before they received the\ninfluences of Christianity to see the difference He makes\neverywhere. No tribe on earth was ever lifted from savagery by the\ninfluence of Socrates, no crime-soaked soul was ever saved by his name\nand yet Socrates was the wisest and noblest of the Greeks. He lived\nfor seventy years and for forty years taught the young men in the most\ncultured age and among the most intellectual people in the world. But\nJesus has lifted cannibals and washed the souls of men who were\nsteeped in blackest vice. The rationalist Lecky said that the simple\nrecord of His three brief years of active life had done more to\nregenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of\nphilosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists.\n\n5. He was crucified, and made of the cross a throne from which to rule\nthe hearts of men. The cross was a gallows far more hideous and cruel\nthan the hangman's gallows. It was the symbol of crime, of shame, of\ndegradation.  He transformed it. It is today the symbol of love, of\npurity, of virtue. His dream came true. Once only did a man dream that\nby dying upon a cross would He teach men to say that God is love, that\nlove is universal, that there is hope for sinners, and that the\nworship of God must be spiritual. This is the miracle of the ages.\nThe Crucified has become the King.\n\nHere then are five tremendous facts. They are unique.  If only one\nwere true it would make Him remarkable, but they are all true.\n\n\nTHE MEANING OF THE FACTS\n\nWhat shall we say of this Man? He accepted Peter's tribute. He allowed\nJews to take up stones to stone Him for claiming to be Son of God. He\nwas conscious of being divine. He forgave sins, which is God's\nprerogative.  He promised rest to the weary soul, which the Old\nTestament set forth as God's own gift. He said that He came to give\nlife eternal, although God is the giver of life. He said that none\ncould know the Father except through Him.  He spoke to God of the\nglory which they shared together before the world was. Just in\nproportion as men have acknowledged His claims in their hearts have\nthey found peace with God and conquest over sin and the fear of\nworldly evil. As we consider all these things we are led to repeat\nPeter's confession, \"Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,\"\nfor God the Father's face shines upon us through Him and heaven is\nopened to us as we look upon Him. In the heart of this the purest of\nmen was the clear, constant consciousness that He was divine.  He\nalways spoke and acted consistently with this consciousness.  Unique\nin character, He made claims that would have stamped any other man as\nan impostor. Humility and majesty dwell together in Him. He could say,\n\"I am meek and lowly in heart,\" and also \"I and my Father are one.\" He\nwould call men His \"brethren\" and yet accept from them the words, \"My\nLord and my God.\"  This wonderful character came of a race that had\nfor ages looked for the coming of a Messiah, and whose prophetic\nliterature was burdened with this hope. After his death his disciples\nwho were heartbroken and cowed became inspired with a heroism that\ncheerfully faced martyrdom.  All these facts are shining lights that\npoint to the truth which Peter confessed. That truth is enshrined in\nthe triumphant words of the Te Deum, \"Thou are the King of glory, O\nChrist. Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.\"\n\nAnd the Christ of history, the exalted Son of God, is a living\nPresence with us today. Not remote but ever near, He walks by our side\nin all life's experiences. Not only enthroned in heavenly glory\n\n\"But warm, sweet, tender, even yet\n  A present help is He,\nAnd faith has still its Olivet\n  And love its Galilee.\"\n\nSuch is our wonderful Saviour, a Friend with human heart of sympathy\nwho has trod our pathway and is touched with the feeling of our\ninfirmities; a Shepherd who gave His life for the sheep in an\nall-atoning sacrifice; an Advocate who represents us with\nall-prevailing power before the throne of the Judge Eternal; a\nChampion who Can break the power of canceled sin and set the prisoner\nfree; a Victor who can smite death's threatening wave before us; a\nLord in whom we see the beauty and glory of the face of God. We are\ncalled upon to confess Him with lip and life. To us to live is\nChrist. Knowing Him we have eternal life. We have all the soul needs\nin Jesus.  There is no substitute for Him. None can share His throne\nin our hearts. The Kingdom is His who is the Christ--the anointed\nKing. Our joy is in Him, where all fullness dwells. We can say with\nCharles Wesley, \"Thou, O Christ, art all I want,\" and our daily life\nshould be one of close, constant communion with Christ.\n\n\n\n\nNo. 21. CHRIST IS ALL.\n\n\"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious.\"--Pet. 11:7.\n\nW. A. WILLIAMS, by per.\n\n_Effectiva as a Soprano Solo, Ad lib_.\n\n[Illustration:  Musical notation]\n\n1.\nI entered once a home of care,\nFor age and penury were there,\nYet peace and joy withal;\nI asked the lonely mother whence\nHer helpless widowhood's defence.\nShe told me, \"Christ was all.\"\nChrist is all, all in all,\nShe told me \"Christ was all\".\n\n2.\nI stood beside a dying bed,\nWhere lay a child with aching head,\nWaiting for Jesus' call,\nI marked his smile, 'twas sweet as May,\nAnd as his spirit passed away,\nHe whispered, \"Christ is all.\"\nChrist is all, all in all,\nHe whispered \"Christ is all.\"\n\n3.\nI saw the martyr at the at the stake,\nThe flames could not his courage shake,\nNor death his soul appall,\nI asked him whence his strength was giv'n,\nHe looked triumphantly to Heav'n,\nAnd answered \"Christ is all.\"\nChrist is all, all in all,\nHe answered, \"Christ is all.\"\n\n4.\nI saw the gospel herald go,\nTo Afric's sand and Greenland's snow,\nTo save from Satan's thrall:\nNo home nor life he counted dear,\nMidst wants and perils owned no fear.\nHe felt that \"Christ is all.\"\nChrist is all, all in all,\nHe felt that \"Christ is all.\"\n\n5.\nI dreamed that hoary time had fled;\nThe earth and sea gave up their dead,\nA fire dissolved this ball;\nI saw the church's ransom'd throng,\nI heard the burden of their song.\n'twas \"Christ is all in all.\"\nChrist is all, all in all,\n'Twas Christ is all in all.\n\n6.\nThen come to Christ, oh! come today.\nThe Father, Son, and Spirit say;\nThe Bride repeats the call;\nFor he will cleanse your guilty stains,\nHis love will sooth your weary pains,\nFor \"Christ is all in all.\"\nChrist is all, all in all,\nFor \"Christ is all in all.\"\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\nIntroduction\n\nTheories of Evolution\n\nPART ONE: Evolution of the Human Body\n\nThe Unity of the Human Race\n\n 1. The Population of the World\n 2. The Unity of Languages\n 3. Religions\n 4. Place of the Origin of Man\n 5. Civilizations\n 6. The Mendelian Inheritance Law\n 7. Biometry\n 8. No New Species Now\n 9. Mathematical Probability\n10. The Age of the Earth\n11. Geology and History\n12. Geographical Distribution\n13. God Not Absent Nor Inactive\n14. Chance or Design?\n15. Evolution Atheistic\n16. Brute Descent Impossible\n17. Eight Impassable Gulfs\n18. Ancestral Apes and Monkeys\n19. A Staggering Speculation\n20. Sex\n21. Man Hairless and Tailless\n22. Hybrids\n23. The Instinct of Animals\n24. Special Creation: Gen. I\n25. Analogy; Mathematics, Laws\n26. Desperate Arguements\n27. Twenty Objections Admitted\n28. Scientists Condemn Evolution\n\nPART TWO: Evidence Answered\n\n29. Paleontology\n30. Confessed Collapse of Proof\n31. Pictures in Caverns\n32. Vestigial Organs\n33. Serology, or Blood Tests\n34. Embryology\n\nPART THREE: The Soul\n\n35. The Origin of the Soul\n36. Personality\n37. Intellect, Emotions and Will\n38. Abstract Reason\n39. Conscience\n40. Spirituality\n4l. The Hope of Immortality\n42. Sin\n43. Redemption\n44. Evolution Aids Infidelity and Atheism\n45. Evolution Wars With Christianity\n46. Camouflage of Terms\n47. What Are We to Believe?\n48. What Can We Do?\n49. Problems for Review\n50. The Supremacy of Jesus\n\nSong: Christ Is All","title":"The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":49233}