| News and Views | July 1944 |
Evolution Versus the Bible
THE news of today is characterized by its frequent references to enemies—enemies which do not hesitate to use any weapons of destruction at their disposal, even alleged “secret weapons.” Christian believers are referred to in the Bible as good soldiers of Jesus Christ, and their enemies are identified as being the world, the flesh and the devil. The devil is the commander in chief of the forces which are constantly endeavoring to destroy the faith of those who accept the teachings of Jesus, the prophets and the apostles, as infallible guides in their lives. Satan, like all other formidable enemies, also uses every possible weapon at his command and he specializes in “secret weapons.” Indeed, the Scriptures declare that he appears as an “angel of light” and by so doing confuses those against whom he fights by making them suppose that he is their friend and that his teachings constitute advanced light on Christianity.—II Cor. 11:14
One of Satan’s secret weapons which he has successfully used in these last days is the theory of human evolution. So successful has he been in the use of this weapon to destroy Christian faith that by far the larger proportion of all Protestant church members the world over have been induced to accept it instead of the plain teachings of the Bible concerning the creation and fall of man.
While evolutionists who do not profess to be Christians are frank to admit that the theory—for it is merely a theory—is utterly contrary to the teachings of the Bible, yet there are thousands who try to accept it and at the same time exercise some sort of a belief in the Bible as being the inspired Word of God. These erroneously claim that the theory of human evolution is not incompatible with the teachings of the Bible when properly understood. It is in this sense that Satan has appeared as an angel of light. The fact that so many do not comprehend the true nature of his attack means that in reality he has been able to undermine faith in the Word of God by this “secret weapon.”
There can be no doubt of the fact that the evolution theory does attack many plain statements of the Bible. It attacks the Genesis record of man’s special creation, and of his subsequent fall into sin and death; for the Darwinites say that man did not fall, but that he has been slowly, steadily evolving from lower to higher planes of civilization and culture throughout many hundreds of thousands of years. Just how evolutionists explain the present orgy of, destructiveness going on among men who have evolved to such an allegedly high standard of civilization, we cannot say. But the very nature of their belief causes them necessarily to scoff at the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and to call it a mere allegory.
And when the evolutionist discards the Genesis story of creation he must also dispense with much of the remainder of the Bible—both of the Old and New Testaments—for it is referred to again and again by the various inspired writers. Jesus Himself, for example, is called the second or “last Adam,” who eventually is to give abundant life to this dying race of the first Adam, whose transgression brought the death penalty upon the whole world.
In I Corinthians 15:45, St. Paul refers to Adam as “the first man,” and in I Timothy 2:13 he declares, “Adam was first formed, then Eve.” Again in I Corinthians 15:22, he says that “in Adam all die,” and in Romans 5:12 he explains that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.” In Acts 17:26, we are told that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men.” If the theory of human evolution were true, all these statements of the New Testament would be in error and utterly undependable.
Jesus is repeatedly referred to in the Bible as man’s Redeemer, and we are told that He came to seek and to save that which was lost—the lost paradise of Eden and the perfection of life that was enjoyed therein before man transgressed. How contrary this is to the theory of evolution, which insists that nothing was lost, that man never needed a Redeemer, and that Jesus’ death on Calvary’s cross couldn’t possibly have been a ransom for anybody, because nobody needed a ransom.
According to the theory of evolution, man is bound to evolve to greater and greater heights by a natural law which carries him ever forward by slow, infinitesimal steps of perpetual progress, or by a principle of the survival of the fittest. The claim is that this law would and does continue to operate for man’s benefit, regardless of whether Jesus suffered and died or not. The evolutionists seem to have overlooked, in connection with this theory, that actually the fittest of the human race do not survive. Consider, for example, what is occurring in the world today, when the very fittest from among the male population of practically all nations are being slaughtered in the war while the less fit, the physically weak and crippled, are surviving to propagate the new generation.
Yes, the evolution theory denies the Bible scheme of things from first to last, denies Jesus’ blood and ransom sacrifice, and denies His coming restitution work. It therefore becomes of vital importance to Bible students to know something about this faith-destroying philosophy, and how its arguments may be combated; for if evolution cannot be disproved by sound reasoning, then no one’s faith in the Bible is secure. If, on the contrary, it can be successfully combated, then our faith in the Bible as God’s Word is confirmed and strengthened and we really have a firm foundation in the promises of God concerning what lies beyond this present time of worldwide distress which has been so clearly delineated in the prophecies of the Bible.
The evolution theory has made rapid headway in recent years because of the lukewarmness of professed supporters of the Bible. So fully has this condition of spiritual lethargy crept over Christendom during the past and present generation, that today most of the occupants of the pulpits believe it in preference to the Bible. Some indulge in various fantastic forms of reasoning on the subject which enable them to say, contrary to the real facts of the case, that they see no antagonism between evolution and the creation story of Genesis.
True, occasionally one here and there has raised his voice against the incoming tide of “science falsely so-called,” but unfortunately much of the anti-evolution arguments to date have emanated from well-meaning but poorly informed persons, who have failed to combat the theory with logic. (I Tim. 6:20) Many of these would-be defenders of the Bible have merely laughed at Darwinism and passed it off with a foolish joke, which, may have amused, but which certainly has not convinced anyone.
The best weapons by which to combat the theory of human evolution are the statements of evolutionists themselves. It is a universally accepted principle in the law of evidence that when a person makes an admission against his own interests it is strong proof that the declaration is true. Therefore, if we find, from studying the published statements of those who firmly believe in the evolution theory and who are in a position to know all the facts concerning the real proof of the theory, that they admit that to date no genuine and infallible proof exists, it should make us realize that this well-nigh universally accepted explanation of the existence of man upon the earth is indeed an unproved theory. It would also mean that the Bible still stands as the only reasonable and truly scientific treatise on the subject of the origin of man.
Let us now see what the evolutionists do to build up their case. They have said that all plants and animals, including man, have sprung from one or a few primordial forms. It is their claim that this process of evolution began as soon as the planet earth cooled down sufficiently to permit life to exist, which, they claim, was probably two or more billion years ago. They claim that this first germ of life came about by sheer accident. Certain atoms of matter, it is claimed, just happened to assemble in a particularly complicated pattern—a certain number of atoms of carbon attached themselves to a certain number of atoms of oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen in the same relationship to each other as are found in living protoplasm today; and the process we call life just naturally resulted. The scientists insist that such an accident as this could easily have happened.
It is but natural for the layman to assume that if such an accident could occur which produced life in the long, long ago, there would seem to be no good reason why similar accidents could not continue to happen today. But the scientist says, No, we are not prepared to say that such a thing is happening right along. In fact, they say, we do not like to use the term “spontaneous generation of life.” So far as we know, scientists explain, life germs do not begin in exactly that way, but come about by cell division from other living cells.
They know, of course, that there were no living cells in the beginning. When this planet was a sizzling hot ball of fire, surely no life germ could have been here at that time. And so they have to admit from the standpoint of their theory that the very first living cell, that first of principal primordial germ that Dr. Darwin spoke about, must have spontaneously generated from nothing more than a number of lifeless atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen which just happened to gather themselves together in a particular proportion and in a specifically designed pattern.
This, indeed, is the only explanation that scientists can give as to the original source of life. But again the layman is puzzled. If a proper combination of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen could just happen to gather together and form life by accident in the distant past, and if scientists are now able, as we understand they are, to determine the proportions of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen in living cells, is it not now possible for them to put these elements together in these proper proportions and thus create life?
The scientist, of course, is forced to admit that he cannot do this. He seems quite certain that such could have happened accidentally a billion years ago, but cannot be caused to occur now, with all the scientific knowledge and instruments available in the best laboratories of the world. We have tried it time and time again, they say, but never yet have succeeded in producing life.
Moving on from generalities in our examination of the views of scientists and evolutionists we now notice a statement by Professor Win. Bateson, an eminent English biologist. Professor Bateson having made a study of life cells for many decades says:
“Of the physics and chemistry of life we know next to nothing. Living things are found by experiment to have powers undreamed of, and who knows what may be behind it.”
We next quote from the late Professor George A. Dorsey, of the University of Chicago, a noted Evolutionist and author of the very popular book, “Why We Behave Like Human Beings.” We quote,
“Science knows nothing of the ultimate origin of matter, or of the source of energy. The problem of the origin of life is locked up in the origin of matter and energy. Life has never been produced in any manmade laboratory. Protoplasm has been reproduced artificially, and it does everything but live.”
From these quotations it is evident that evolutionists do not know how their much hailed evolutionary process began, nor can they determine the origin of the materials which were supposed to have come together accidentally to form life. Admittedly they cannot give a truly logical answer, while the Bible definitely asserts that matter and life were created by a supreme, intelligent Creator. Strange, isn’t it, that our scientists and evolutionists could confess so little knowledge about the origin of life and then assume that they are qualified to tell us all about how one form of life gradually changed into another and higher form of life from the one-celled amoeba to the jellyfish; then to the vertebrated fish; then to amphibian, frog-like creatures which could breathe both in the air and in the water; then to birds; then to quadruped mammals; then to quadrumanous-like apes; and finally, man. To hear them discuss this alleged evolutionary process one might think that they know all about it, and that they have abundant proof for every statement which they make. But when we question them we discover that they are just guessing about the whole thing.
The theory of evolution, it is claimed, is proven by four distinct lines of reasoning. One of these, scientists declare, are the many anatomical similarities between various living animals, including man. They find it difficult to believe that such complex yet similar things could have arisen independently.
But is this a real proof of evolution? It seems to us inevitable that there should be certain similarities between different species of God’s creatures, because there are certain mechanical and biological principles that are commonly involved in the function of them all. The dog and the horse both have to walk on four legs and naturally the Creator would put similar structures on each to enable them to function in that manner. But this no more proves that the one evolved from the other than that a Masonic Temple evolved from St. Peter’s Cathedral. There are similarities between the two, they both have walls and a roof, because they both perform somewhat similar functions, but they are otherwise unrelated. The same is true with the various creatures which God has made. He could make men and apes somewhat similar, if He wanted to, but that would not prove that the one evolved from the other.
Indeed, there are more differences than there are similarities between the various animals of earth. Why not stress the differences instead of the similarities? If the similarities prove the theory of evolution, then we submit that by the same law of logic the differences between the species disprove evolution.
Another of the scientists’ four fundamental proofs of evolution comes from the study of fossils of extinct animals. In some of our great museums, these fossils are on display, arranged in series to demonstrate the similarities, step by step, from a small animal to a large one like a horse. These displays always begin with the smallest and most primitive looking creature, and gradually go on up to the more complex organism. School children look at these displays and think they are being shown tangible proof of evolution.
However, before accepting such a proof as being genuinely bona fide, it is but fair to ask whether or not these arrangements of fossils are artificial or true to facts. Did the small animal at the start of the exhibit live millions of years before the last one shown at the head of the exhibit? Do all the skeletons between represent a gradual sequence in point of time, or could it be possible that any or all of these animals may have lived contemporaneously? Dr. Thomas Hunt Morgan, former Professor of Columbia University, answers this question very frankly, for which we are glad:
“Because we can often arrange the series of structures in a line extending from the very simple to the most complex, we are apt to become unduly impressed by this fact, and conclude that they have arisen in the order of their complexity. But this conclusion is not necessarily correct.”
The professor could have stated himself even more positively on this point had he wished to do so, for it is now a well known fact to scientists that these fossil exhibits in our museums are artificially and deceptively arranged, without any regard to chronological sequence. They are arranged to impress the onlooker that each of the animals evolved from the one immediately preceding it, but there is absolutely no proof that such is the case. Prof. J.P. Lotsy, famous Dutch phylogenist, who has devoted much of his life to arranging these museum exhibits and making “reconstructions,” from fossil fragments, makes the following very candid admission:
“Phylogeny, that is, reconstruction of what existed in the past, is no science at all, but a product of fantastic speculation. … This is not written down lightly; nobody cares to destroy his own efforts.”—“Evolution By Hybridization,” page 140.
The late Dr. Etheridge, former fossil expert of the great British Museum, came to a similar conclusion. He said:
“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. … In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”
Evolutionists, in a studied effort to establish kinship between man and beast, have drawn deeply at the well of vain imaginations and have made reconstructions of what they supposed earliest man must have looked like. These artificial “reconstructions” or “restorations” are to be found in our museums, and they invariably represent early man as bearing a very close resemblance to the ape. But the plastic artists who made these so-called “reconstructions” knew no more about what early man looked like than does anyone else; they simply drew upon their vivid imaginations.
One of America’s leading museums, for example, proudly displays an original reconstruction of the so-called “Trinil apeman.” It is a horrible looking creature; ape-like countenance, simian ears, scowling face and long shaggy hair. As you stand before it you imagine it is indeed a “half man, half beast,” a dangerous low-brow creature that is ready to tear you to shreds.
What evidence did the plastic artist J.H. McGregor, have in his possession by which he was able to “reconstruct” this so-called Trinil apeman? Simply this: The upper part of a human thigh bone, part of a skull, and a few teeth. These were found at Trinil, Java, in 1891. And these bones were not together when they were found. The teeth were discovered in the sand fully a yard from the skull, and the shattered thigh bone fragment was nearly fifty feet away. Yet from these bits of scattered bone, which nobody can prove ever belonged to one and the same creature, Professor McGregor made his “reconstruction,” with its ape-like jaws, gaping mouth, simian ears, shaggy hair and all.
And a picture of this McGregor “reconstruction of earliest man” has been reproduced in many textbooks for schoolchildren to gaze upon as “proof” of human evolution. This plaster-cast bust is admittedly an able specimen of plastic art, but it is no more proof of human evolution than is any imaginative sketch of a “caveman” drawn for a magazine cover. That the fantastic nature of these reconstructions is not merely a layman’s opinion is shown by the following quotation from the book, “World Essential Knowledge,” Volume 1, written by Professors Albert Sheppard and John Seybold Morris of New York University:
“A single bone in the hands of some of these scientific magicians is soon transformed into a complete human being, physically perfect but ethically horrible. … In recent years we have had more than our normal supply of sweeping generalizations, which too often are the last resort of baffled or tired minds. … It is unfortunate that the people of the ‘pre-civilization era’ all hear in the popular mind the stigma of inferiority. of brutishness and of savagery. Some of this no doubt due to the riotous imaginations of scientists and pseudo-scientists.”
The third line of argument used by scientists to “prove” the theory of evolution is that a human fetus undergoes many different changes before birth, and that at certain stages it looks like some lower animal. This is such a thin argument for evolution that it hardly calls for any rebuttal. Naturally the embryo goes through successive changes—it is inevitable. The fact that the ears at one stage of development resemble the gills of a fish no more means that we are related to fish than that we are related to the man in the moon.
The fourth argument presented is that cross-breeding has produced some hybrid monstrosities, different from the parents. This is not an argument for evolution, but against it. The fact is that the evolutionists, ever since Darwin’s day, have been experimenting with the crossing of species. And all that they ever have produced were sterile species. You can cross the horse and the donkey, but the resultant offspring is a mule that cannot propagate its kind. The same is true when you cross the horse and the zebra. And so every time they have attempted to produce a new species by crossing two structurally similar species, nature calls a halt and will not let the hybrid offspring cross with anything; it is always sterile. Nature is opposed to the crossing of species instead of encouraging it.
And so, upon examination, we find that the four supposed proofs of evolution are in reality no proofs at all. It still remains an improvable theory. Scientists and evolutionists who are honest enough to express themselves frankly on the subject admit as much. Let us note what some of the prominent authorities actually have said. Professor J.B. Warren, of the University of California, has made this statement:
“There certainly should be at least a few recorded instances of the evolution of one species from another, … but no such actual instance is known.”
Professor H.H. Newman, zoologist of the University of Chicago, on page 57 of his “Reading on Evolution,” says:
“Reluctant though we may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution.”
Doctor Darwin, himself, in his “Origin of Species,” makes the following frank admission:
“In spite of the efforts of trained observers not one change of species into another is on record.”
The late Professor Vernon Kellogg, of Leland Stanford University, on page 18 of his book, entitled, “Darwinism of Today,” admits the following:
“We only tell the general truth when we declare that no indubitable cases of species-forming … have been observed. For my part it seems better to go back to the old safe ignoramus standpoint.”
Professor C.A. Seward, of Cambridge University, is another evolutionist who has tried to prove the theory by critically examining the fossils of extinct animals and arranging them into series in the supposed order of their evolution, but has found so many enormous gaps in the record that he gave it up as a bad job. In an article in “Nature” magazine, he admits:
“A student who takes an impartial retrospect discovers that the fossil record raises more problems than it solves.”
It may be all right to theorize that birds evolve from fish, amphibians and reptiles, but so far as the fossils reveal, birds made their appearance suddenly and dramatically, as shown in the Jurassic stratum of the Mesozoic era, with full feathers and wings; and there are no intermediate types of creatures between reptiles and birds. This is but one of the many unbridged gaps in the fossil record.
Professor Louis Trenchard Moore, Dean of the University of Cincinnati, on pages 160, 161 of his book entitled, “Dogma of Evolution,” explains that the more one studies Paleontology (fossils) the more certain he becomes that evolution is based on faith alone—that there is no tangible proof for it.
Another scientist who is frank to admit the truth is Professor Geoffrey Smith of Oxford University. He has made a study of the fossils of sponges, echinoderms mollusca and worms, taken from strata which are believed to represent the early geological ages millions of years ago. We have the same species of animals still living in the sea today. But certainly they must have undergone a great many changes in these alleged millions of years, so that there would surely be many differences between a modern mollusk and a fossil mollusk that lived back in earliest geologic times. But this is what Professor Smith says about it in his interesting book entitled, “Primitive Animals”:
“If we examine the fossil shells, and those of the living animals, with the minutest care, we would not be able to detect the smallest differences.”—Page 91.
According to the late Sir John Arthur Thomson, of Aberdeen, the Scriptural thesis that primitive man was on a higher level of intellectuality than the human race of today is true. We quote:
“Modern research is leading us away from the picture of primitive man as brutish, dull, lascivious and bellicose. There is more justification for regarding primitive man as clever, kindly, generous, and inventive.”
Another significant admission by a leading evolutionist and paleontologist is that from the pen of Professor Richard S. Lull, in his “Readings in Evolution.” He points out on page 95 that insofar as any change being effected in man, it is “largely retrogressive.” He mentions some of these retrogressive changes such as “reduction of hair and teeth, and of hand skill, and dulling of the senses of sight, smell and hearing.” In other words, he admits that man is falling instead of evolving, and this is exactly what the Bible teaches and has taught with clarion tones throughout the centuries.
Even as staunch an evolutionist as the late Professor George A. Dorsey of the University of Chicago, in his very popular book entitled, “Why We Behave Like Human Beings,” says, on page 19:
“Our teeth are on the go. A perfect ‘civilized’ set is rare.”
Then he contrasts us with man of ages ago, saying:
“In hundreds of skulls [of ancient men] which I collected in New Guinea, there was not one imperfect set [of teeth]—all sound, beautifully aligned.”
This does not sound like the operation of an evolutionary law in which there is “survival of the fittest”; for the best human specimens seem to be extinct today, while degeneration has continued to reign with a high hand. Many modern observers admit that civilization is declining, both physically and mentally; notwithstanding that men are making educational progress because of the many means of acquiring knowledge.
As further evidence that scientists are now being forced to repudiate the Darwinian myth that earliest historical man was a low-browed brute from which we have gradually evolved, let us quote again from the recent collaborated works of Professors Albert Sheppard and John S. Morris. In Volume I of their “Outline of History,” pages 28 and 29, they say:
“When we open the first page of authentic history we find man in possession of almost all the fundamental inventions. He had learned the art not only of using tools, but also of making them. … In drawing, painting and sculpture he had developed a very respectable ability in response to his instinctive desire to express his love of the beautiful.
“Such a picture as these earliest records present to us differs in no great essential from life lived today on great areas of the world’s surface. How all these inventions and discoveries came about we have no certain knowledge.”
Yes, man has fallen, not evolved, despite the fact that Darwinists have tried to picture primitive man as a low-brow savage, an apish creature just one step above the brute. So long as the world knew very little about the earliest civilization, the evolutionists could solemnly advance that speculative theory, and many were inclined to believe it.
But actual archeological discoveries of the past few years tell us a very different story. We now know that the earliest inhabitants of Mesopotamia—the generally accepted “cradle of civilization”—as well as the earliest known people of Egypt, Crete and Asia Minor, actually had a civilization that exceeded that of Europe three or four centuries ago; and indeed compared favorably with ours of the present day.
Human evolution is unscriptural as well as unscientific, and there is no scientific reason why we should not accept the Scriptural testimony as being the real truth on the subject of creation. The most important argument, therefore, to offset the evolution theory is the fact that it is contradictory to Bible truth, being opposed to the divine plan as revealed in the inspired Scriptures. Those who imagine they can believe both Darwinism and the Bible either do not understand the Darwinian theory, or else misunderstand the teachings of the Scriptures.
As already noted, the Bible very plainly declares that man was a direct creation of God—not a creature that came into being haphazardly, or through “slow, infinitesimal steps of perpetual progress.” The account in Genesis is perfectly clear—that God created man in His own image—“in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.”—Gen. 1:27
The perfect man Adam was sentenced to death because he disobeyed God’s law. The ransoming of mankind from this sentence of death is the theme of many inspired writers of the Bible. It was for this purpose that Jesus came into the world to suffer and die. That is why He is called our Redeemer. Darwinism would destroy the whole story of redemption in Jesus. If man never fell, then there is no need of a Redeemer.
Following in logical sequence to the Biblical doctrine of man’s redemption through Jesus’ death is the revealed purpose of God to restore redeemed man to that which he lost. This wonderful Bible doctrine is described as “restitution,” but it would have no meaning at all if the evolution theory be true. The Apostle Peter speaks of the hope of human restitution and declares that it was foretold through the mouths of all God’s holy prophets since the world began.—Acts 3:19-21
How much better is this hope of future blessing through restitution accomplished by divine power than to depend upon the myth of evolution which spells despair for all instead of blessing for as many as will accept life on God’s reasonable terms. Merely to pass life on to our offspring and to lose any possible benefit we may have had from the experiences and trials of this life is the hopeless outlook of the evolutionist. From the standpoint of this dismal theory, man, except for his superior intelligence, is little better off than the brute creation. No wonder the Psalmist David could write, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” —Psalm 14:1; 53:1