Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Free Classic E-books

The Evolution Of Man Scientifically Disproved by William A. Williams

Part 1 out of 3

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 0.3 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

E-text prepared by Dave Maddock





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

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

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



Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of
science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the
maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of
science. Moreover, we should examine any new hypothesis with open
minds, to see if it has in it anything truthful, helpful or
advantageous. It should neither be accepted nor rejected simply
because it is new. But if a theory is evidently or probably untrue, or
pernicious, or at all harmful, it is to be rejected and condemned.

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

We shall discuss the theory upon its merits, from a scientific
standpoint, and will also demand an explanation of all facts
concerned, as we have a right to do, even where they are associated
with the theological and the spiritual as well as the material. We do
not oppose true science but "science falsely so called." We do not ban
research, but will not allow the wild vagaries of the imagination to
pass as truth.

We shall not declare arbitrarily that evolution is untrue; neither
will we allow scientists to decide what we shall believe. But we shall
appeal to the facts, and evolution must stand or fall by the
evidence. "Evolution is not to be accepted until proved." It is not
yet proved and never will be.


Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or
disproved by this acid test. Figures will not lie, and mathematics
will not lie even at the demand of liars. Their testimony is as clear
as the mind of God. Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous
calculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory is
proved true, and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematical
calculations. The calculations, leading to the discovery of Neptune,
went far to establish the Copernican theory as well as the law of
gravitation, and to disprove the Ptolemaic theory. The evolution
theory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved by
mathematics. The proof is overwhelming and decisive. Thus God makes
the noble science of mathematics bear testimony in favor of the true
theories and against the false theories. We shall endeavor to marshal
some of the mathematical proofs against the false and pernicious
theory of evolution. True theories, such as the gravitation and
Copernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch of
mathematics harmonizes with every other. If evolution were true, it
would harmonize with all other true theories, rather than with so many
false theories.


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

1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not
created, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful of
the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable
doctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme
atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey,
and degrade man."

2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all
plants and animals, including man, are developed from certain original
simple germs, was Lamarck, a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded
that God created matter,--nothing more. He believed in spontaneous
generation, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.

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

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

5. A fifth theory of evolution is held by many. It is called
polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks,
or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to
change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his
plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved,
is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants,
animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the
monophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animals
including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation
or spontaneous generation. Evolution is used throughout this book in
this latter sense, unless otherwise indicated by the context. God does
not create by evolution, for it can only develop what already exists.

This book is divided into three parts: In Part One, material
evolution, especially the evolution of the human body, is
disproved. In Part Two, the alleged proofs of evolution are examined
and refuted. In Part Three, the evolution of the soul is shown to be

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



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

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

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

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

It will be shown in this book, that a large number of facts can not be
reconciled with evolution, especially the evolution of man, thus
proving that it can not be a true theory. We really have a right to
demand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent until
proved. While we are under no obligation to _disprove_ an
unproven theory, yet it is the shortest way to settle the matter once
for all, before it has led multitudes more astray, and wrecked the
faith and hopes of the young.

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

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

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


The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it
is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be
mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of
the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the
theory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race be
true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a
great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth,
without one common language or religion. The present population of the
globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived
not earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves
one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs,
common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion
in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions
invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and
the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race
began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a
civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were
true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as
now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no
similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if
anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by
evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove
evolution impossible.

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

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

We shall present these arguments more in detail. The arguments
immediately following, especially the first eight, show the unity of
the human race in the days of Noah, and thus present insuperable
objections to evolution, and confirm the story of man's creation and
his destruction by the flood. The following is the first of fifty
Arguments against the evolution of man.


The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of
1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000. The human race must double
itself 30.75 times to make this number. This result may be
approximately ascertained by the following computation:--

At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be
two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the
tenth, 1024; the twentieth, 1,048,576, the thirtieth, 1,073,741,824;
and the thirty-first, 2,147,483,648. In other words, if we raise two
to the thirtieth power, we have 1,073,741,824; or to the thirty-first
power, 2,147,483,648. Therefore, it is evident even to the school boy,
that, to have the present population of the globe, the net population
must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one
times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all
allowances are made for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses
of all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times,
we would have the present population of the globe.

Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint
text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since
the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By
dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years
for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present
population. This is a reasonable average length of time.

Moreover, it is singularly confirmed by the number of Jews, or
descendants of Jacob. According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since
the marriage of Jacob. By the same method of calculation as above, the
Jews, who, according to the Jewish yearbook for 1922, number
15,393,815, must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once
every 161.251 years. The whole human race, therefore, on an average
has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251
years. What a marvelous agreement! We would not expect the figures to
be exactly the same nor be greatly surprised if one period were twice
the other. But their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of
the human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of
God by the most proficient chronologists. If the human race is
2,000,000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years, or
402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable.

While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet
there are few things so stable and certain as general average, where
large numbers and many years are considered, as in the present
case. No life insurance company, acting on general average statistics,
ever failed on that account. The Jews and the whole human race have
lived together the same thirty-eight centuries with very little
intermarriage, and are affected by similar advantages and
disadvantages, making the comparison remarkably fair.

Also, the 25,000,000 descendants of Abraham must have doubled their
numbers every 162.275 years, during the 3,988 years since the birth of
his son Ishmael. These periods of doubling which tally so closely,
168.3 years for the whole race, 161.251 for the Jews, and 162.275
years for the descendants of Abraham, cannot be a mere coincidence,
but are a demonstration against the great age of man required by
evolution, and in favor of the 5,177 years since Noah. None of the
other various chronologies would make any material difference in these
calculations. The correspondence of these figures, 168.3, 161.251 and
162.275 is so remarkable that it must bring the conviction to every
serious student that the flood destroyed mankind and Noah became the
head of the race.

Now the evolutionists claim that the human race is 2,000,000 years
old. There is no good reason for believing that, during all these
years the developing dominant species would not increase as rapidly as
the Jews, or the human race in historic times, especially since the
restraints of civilization and marriage did not exist. But let us
generously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one
pair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years, one-tenth as rapidly as
the Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the
1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures
following. The population of the world, therefore, would have been
18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion,
decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or
18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion,
vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.

Or, let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a
single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by
any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the
population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net
increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the
globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every
man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater
allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without
blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the
ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000
or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population
had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more
than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made,
or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand
as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a
new guess. Q. E. D.

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

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

That their guesses can not possibly be correct, is proven also by
approaching the subject from another angle. If the human race is
2,000,000 years old, and must double its numbers 30.75 times to make
the present population, it is plain that each period for doubling
would be 65,040 years, since {2,000,000/30.75} = 65,040. At that rate,
there would be fewer than four Jews! If we suppose the race to have
sprung from one pair 100,000 years ago, it would take 3252 years to
double the population. At this rate, there would be five Jews!

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

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

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


The unity of the languages of the world proves the recent common
origin of man. Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists,
declared that all languages are derived from one. This is abundantly
proven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammatical
construction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of their
alphabets, etc. The words for father and mother similar in form, for
example, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, the
Aryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups,
showing a common original language and proving the early existence of
the home and civilization. The similarity of these and many other
words in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages,
spoken in all continents is common knowledge. Lord Avebury names 85
Hamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and mother
are similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, including
Turkish, Thibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 in
New Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken by
American Indians. The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are
daughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and the
Aryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, the
daughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediate
descendants. There can not well be more than 4 generations of
languages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the development
of the 1000 languages and dialects. The American Indians have
developed about 200 in 3,000 or 4,000 years. The life of a language
roughly speaking, seems to range from 1000 to 3,000 years. The time
since Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages of
the world. But if man has existed for 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 years,
with a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would have
been multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or no
resemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They were
never spoken because no one lived to speak them.

Many linguists insist that the original language of mankind consisted
of a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use only
about 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters; the
stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanscrit, about the same. All the Semitic
languages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages is
to grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a few
small words must have been close to the original mother tongue. No
language could have come down from the great antiquity required by
evolution and have so few words. Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000
words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000. The evidence points to the
origin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves the
great antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitiful


The unity of ancient religions proves the creation of man who received
a divine revelation. According to evolution, all religions were
evolved or invented by humanoids. In that case, we would expect them
to be widely divergent; and we would be surprised, if they agreed on
great and important points, and especially on points which could not
be clearly arrived at by reason. For instance, what in reason teaches
us that an animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God? How could
unassisted reason ever arrive at the conclusion that God is properly
worshipped by sacrificing a sheep or an ox? If we grant that one
section of the anthropoid host might have stumbled on the idea, how
can we account for its prevalence or its universality? A very high
authority says, "Sacrifices were common to all nations of antiquity,
and therefore, traced by some to a personal revelation." By
revelation, we learn that the animal sacrifice prefigured the Lamb
slain on Calvary. It was revealed. No race of monkey-men could ever
have invented the idea.

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

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

Dr. Dummelow says: "It is now widely admitted that the Genesis account
of creation contains elements of belief which existed perhaps
thousands of years before the book of Genesis was written, among the
peoples of Babylonia and Assyria." Many of the primeval revelations
were handed down by tradition. God communed with Adam. There are many
relics of the original religion: the division of time into weeks, and
the institution of the Sabbath day; the sacrifices so common in the
ancient religions; the general existence of priests and temples in all
ages, and among all nations; marriage, the divinely authorized pillar
of society; the early institution of the family, and the use of the
root words for father and mother, in all the most ancient languages,
and families of languages, as well as in the scattered languages of
the earth spoken by the most savage. The belief in the immortality of
the soul, is well nigh universal, even among tribes, who, unlike
Plato, possess no power to reason it from the light of nature. In
contrast, we behold the sorry spectacle of the anthropoid
evolutionists of our day trying to drive from the hearts of men the
hope of immortality by their "science falsely so-called." The burial
of the dead is, no doubt, a relic, since animals, even of the monkey
tribe, do not bury their dead.


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

The habitable countries of the world total 50,670,837 sq. mi. We are
making a generous estimate, when we suppose the garden of Eden to have
been 100 mi. wide and 125 mi. long,--12,500 sq. mi. There are 4005
such areas in the habitable globe. It is located in Mesopotamia on the
Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Maps of ancient nations show that mankind radiated from this
centre. The great nations of antiquity were clustered about it. The
beginning of the race after the flood was in the same general

Ridpath in his great history of the world, graphically shows the
migrations of races and nations. With this, even evolutionists
agree. They draw a line "according to Giddings," running through
western Asia, in the region of the garden of Eden. Since there are
4005 such areas in the habitable globe, Moses had only one chance out
of 4005 to guess the spot, if he had not been inspired of God. Anyone
guessing, might have located the origin of man in any of the countries
of Europe, Asia or Africa. This clearly demonstrates that God revealed
the truth to Moses, and that the story of creation is true and of
evolution false.

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


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

The recent explorations in the tomb of Tutankhamen, in Egypt, and the
more recent explorations of the tomb of a still more ancient Egyptian
monarch, show that a high degree of civilization prevailed from 2000
to 1300 B.C. The art displayed in the carvings and paintings, and the
skill of the artisans are beyond praise. They had knowledge even of
what are now lost arts. They had a written language 300 years before
Homer wrote his immortal Iliad. Yet many higher critics claim that
writing was unknown in the days of Moses and Homer. They declare that
the Iliad, a poem in 24 books, was committed to memory, and handed
down from generation to generation, 400 years with all its fine poetic
touches. Monstrous alternative! Indeed we are even told that "Many
men must have served as authors and improvers." The mob of reciters
improved the great epic of Homer! Scarcely less brilliant is the
suggestion of another higher critic that, "Homer's Iliad was not
composed by Homer, but by another man of the same name"!

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

It is admitted that the earliest (Sumerian) civilization began on the
Euphrates, near the garden of Eden. They had temples and priests, and,
therefore, religion prevailed as well as civilization. The first great
empires clustered around the places where Adam and Noah lived. No
other civilization recorded in any quarter reaches farther back.

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

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

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

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

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

The earliest records show man was civilized. He lived in houses,
cities and towns, read and wrote, and engaged in commerce and
industry. To be sure, he did not have the inventions of modern
times. If all these were necessary, then there was no civilization
prior to the 20th century. Prof. J. Arthur Thompson, of Aberdeen, an
evolutionist, says: "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, adventurous and inventive."

It is admitted that cannibalism was not primeval. The two great
revolting crimes of barbarism, cannibalism and human sacrifices, only
prevailed when man had fallen to the lowest depths, not when he had
risen out of savagery to the heights. The assertion that man was
originally a brute, savage and uncivilized is pure fiction,
unsupported by the facts. The original civilization of mankind
supports the Bible, and upsets evolution.


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

Also experiments with the interbreeding of animals have shown similar
results. The recessive or disappearing characteristics, or the
disappearing variety, will appear again, in some subsequent
generation, and sometimes becomes permanent. This law prevails widely
in nature, and the recessive traits appear with the dominant
traits. "If rose-combed fowl were mated with single-combed fowl, the
offspring were all rose-combed, but when these rose-combed fowl were
mated, the offspring were again rose-combed and single-combed.... If
gray rabbits were mated with black rabbits, their hybrids were all
gray, the black seemingly disappearing, but when the second generation
were mated, the progeny were again grays and blacks."--God or
Gorilla--p. 278. _The recessive character always reappears._

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

Following analogy, we ought to look for a tribe of human beings that
had degenerated into apes. That we find no such recessive
characteristics even among the most degenerate savages, and no such
ape-like tribe of human beings, is a decisive proof that man never
descended from the brute. Else such recessive characteristics,
according to the Mendelian Law, would be sure to appear. We would also
find monkeys and apes,--the recessive species--descended from man.


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

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

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

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

Biometrists find that there is a Law of Filial Regression, or a
tendency to the normal in every species, checking the accumulation of
departures from the average, and forbidding the formation of new
species by inheritance of peculiarities. The whole tendency of the
laws of nature is against the formation of new species, so essential
to evolution. The species brings forth still "after its kind." "On
the average, extreme peculiarities of parents are less extreme in
children." "The stature of adult offspring must, on the whole, be more
mediocre than the stature of the parents." Gifted parents rarely have
children as highly gifted as themselves.

The tendency is to revert to the normal in body and mind. Nature
discourages the formation of new species, evolutionists to the
contrary notwithstanding. "Like produces like" is a universal and
unchangeable law. God has forbidden species to pass their boundaries;
and, if any individual seems to threaten to do so, by possessing
abnormal peculiarities, these are soon corrected, often in the next
generation. Even Professor H. H. Newman says, "On the whole, the
contributions of biometry to our understanding of the causes of
evolution are rather disappointing." A science that upsets evolution
is certainly disappointing to evolutionists.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have a right to increase the pressure of the argument, by
introducing into the calculation, the total of 3,000,000 species of
plants and animals which would require 6355 new species within the
last 6000 years, or an average of more than one new species a year!
And they can not point to one new species in 6000 years, as they
confess. Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, said
recently: "If the theory of evolution be true, then, during many
thousands of years, covered in whole or in part by present human
knowledge, there would certainly be known at least a few instances of
the evolution of one species from another. _No such instance is

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

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

Although scientists have so largely discarded Darwin's theory, the
utter lack of new species in historic time, when so many are required
by _every_ theory of evolution, is a mathematical demonstration
that the whole theory of evolution must be abandoned. Q. E. D. Why do
they still insist it _may be true_?


Mathematical Probability is a branch or division of mathematics by
means of which the odds in favor or against the occurrence of any
event may be definitely computed, and the measure of the probability
or improbability exactly determined. Its conclusions approximate
certainty and reveal how wild the guesses of evolutionists are.

The evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical
probability. It is so improbable that one and only one species out of
3,000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the
case. All had the same start, many had similar environments. Yet
witness the motly products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk,
scorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm,
and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize,
mushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc. All developed
from one germ, all in some way related. Mark well the difference in
size between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and the
difference in intellect between man and the lobster!

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

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

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

We find all gradations of species in size from the largest to the
smallest. Why not the same gradation in _intelligence, conscience
and spirituality_? The difference in brain, capacity and
intelligence between man and the ape is 50% greater than the
difference in size between the elephant and the housefly. There are
many thousands of species to fill the gap in size. Why not many
thousands to fill the greater gap in intelligence? Evidently no
species became human by growth. Many species like the amoeba, and the
microscopic disease germs, have not developed at all but are the same
as ever. Many other species of the lower forms of life have remained
unchanged during the ages. If the tendency is to develop into the
higher forms of life, why do we have so many of those lower forms
which have remained stationary? Growth, development, evolution, is
not, by any means, a universal rule.

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

And now we have a new amendment to the theory of evolution: We are
told that the huge Saurians (reptiles) overworked the development
idea, and became too large and cumbersome, and hence are now
extinct. Prof. Cope says:--"Retrogression in nature is as well
established as evolution." It seems that man also has, contrary to all
former conceptions, reached the limit of his development, if he has
not already gone too far.

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

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

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

Environment has had an evolution as well as plants and animals! Having
denied the existence of God, or his active control and interference,
they must account for environment by evolution. Listen:--"Henderson
points out that environment, no less than organisms, has had an
evolution. Water, for example, has a dozen unique properties that
condition life. Carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to life. The
properties of the ocean are so beautifully adjusted to life that we
marvel at the exactness of its fitness. [Yet no design!]. Finally, the
chemical properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are equally unique
and unreplaceable. The evolution of environment and the evolution of
organisms have gone hand in hand." And all by blind chance! Is it not
a thousand times better to believe that all things were created by an
all-wise and all powerful God? How could a lifeless environment come
by evolution? If we would listen to them, we would be told that the
ocean, the atmosphere, heat, light, electricity, all the elements, the
starry heavens, and all the universe, and religion itself, came by
evolution, some grudgingly granting that God _may_ have created
matter in the beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe that one species and only one out of
3,000,000 by evolution should attain the status of mankind; and that
one species and only one species of the primates should reach the
heights of intelligence, reason, conscience and spirituality. Huxley
says, "There is an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite,
between the lowest man and the highest beast."

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


The estimates of the age of the world vary from 16,000,000 years to
100 times this number or 1,600,000,000 years. Even H.G. Wells admits
these estimates "rest nearly always upon theoretical assumptions of
the slenderest kind." This is undoubtedly true of the reckless
estimates of evolutionists, whose theory requires such an enormous
length of time that science can not concede it. Prof. H.H. Newman
says, "The last decade has seen the demise (?) of the outworn (?)
objection to evolution, based on the idea that there has not been time
enough for the great changes that are believed by evolutionists to
have occurred. Given 100,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years since life
began we can then allow 1,000,000 years for each important change to
arise and establish itself."

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

But these extravagantly long periods required by the theory, science
cannot grant, for the following reasons:--

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

2. The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the
great age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperature
increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50
feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil;
at 18 mi., glass would melt (1850 deg.); at 28 mi., every known substance
would melt (2700 deg.). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles
thick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if
the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the
San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the
crust is 21.91 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380
years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's
age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210
years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have
elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the
few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render
evolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of the
earth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of
the earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and
the 9000 tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of
the world.

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

The recession of the Niagara Falls from Lake Ontario required only
7,000 to 11,000 years. It required only 8,000 years for the
Mississippi River to excavate its course.

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

LeConte, in his Geology, p. 19, says, "Making due allowance for all
variations, it is probable that all land-surfaces are being cut down
and lowered by rain and river erosion, at a rate of one foot every
5,000 years. At this rate, if we take the mean height of lands as 1200
feet, and there be no antagonistic agency at work raising the land,
all lands would be cut down to the sea level and disappear in
6,000,000 years."

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

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

But the evolutionists are clinging to the radio-activity theory
desperately, an S.O.S. of a lost cause, depending, like evolution, on
a great many assumptions, and unproven hypotheses. The assumption is
that a radio-active substance, like uranium, "decays," or passes into
many other substances, of which radium is one, finally producing lead
in 1,000,000,000 years or more. From this theory, Prof. Russell
concludes that the earth is 4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years old,
and the sun is older still. During this inconceivably long period, the
sun was giving out as much heat as at present, which is 2,200,000,000
times as much as the earth receives. The heat of the sun can not be
accounted for, by either the combustion or cooling off theory. By the
commonly accepted contraction theory, the heat has been maintained
only about 20,000,000 years. How could it have been sustained
4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years? Prof. Russell answers: "We must
therefore _suppose_ that energy from an 'unknown source' becomes
available at exceedingly high temperatures.... We can not do more than
_guess_ where it is hidden." Is this scientific? This theory,
moreover, is interlocked with Einstein's theory of Relativity, which
holds that all energy has mass, and all mass is equivalent to
energy. Although 2700 books have been written, pro and con, upon
Einstein's theory, yet he says only 12 men understand it, and a
scientist retorts that Einstein can not be one of the 12. The
contraction theory, the thickness of the cooled crust of the earth,
and the conformation of its surface, all give mathematical proof that
evolution is impossible because of lack of time.


During the historical period, the species have remained unchanged. If
over 1,000,000 species of animals have arisen in the 60,000,000 years,
as is claimed, over 2000 of them must have arisen in the last 6,000
years. As evolutionists can not name a single new species that has
arisen within that time, their theory falls to the ground. No species
in that time, has passed into another. No species has been divided
into two or more. No lower species has advanced into a higher. History
gives no scrap of evidence in support of evolution. Even the horse,
whose history has been dubiously traced for 3,000,000 years, has been
a horse unchanged for the last 6,000 years. Even if the missing links
in the development of the horse _could_ be supplied, it would
still be the same species all the while. But there are no
transitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of the
horse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size. Many
varieties and individuals under the skill of man have been developed
and improved, but not a single new species in historic time. There
are 5,000 varieties of apples but no new species. But when the
evolutionist is hard pressed to answer, he takes to the wilds of
eternity where it is hard to pursue him, and to check up on his
guesses. He answers that changes are so slow, and take so many
millions of years, that they can not tell of a single new species in
the last 6,000 years, when over 2,000 are required.

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

But Geology will not aid him to prove his reckless theory. Even Darwin
complained that the evidences from Geology were scanty. Geology
testifies: The genera and species of fossil animals are as distinct as
those now living; new species appear at certain epochs entirely
different from those which preceded; often the most perfect specimens
of a new species appear at the beginning of a geologic period rather
than at its close, leaving no room for evolution; no species is shown
changing into another; and many species are largest at the
beginning. As Geology is brought in as a hopeful witness by
evolutionists, they are bound by a well-known principle of law, to
accept the statements of their own witness even though fatal to their

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

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

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

All the bones purporting to belong to these four creatures would not
together make one complete skeleton, or even one complete skull. A
child could carry all this "evidence" in a basket. These skulls can be
duplicated by abnormal skulls in many graveyards today. Scientists are
not certain they belong to the same individual. Part ape, part
human. A desperate effort to get convincing evidence, where there is
none. We can not be certain they lived in the age claimed. Scientists,
even evolutionists, differ widely.

In contrast to this scant and uncertain evidence, Ales Hrdlicka, of
the Smithsonian Institution, speaking of a single locality, says, "Near
Lyons, France, the skeletons of 200,000 prehistoric horses are
scattered. In one cave in Moravia, there are enough mammoth teeth to
fill a small sized hall.... From the Heidelberg man, there is
practically no record for about 200,000 years. The kinship of the
Piltdown Java and Heidelberg man _is open to dispute_. The
Neanderthal man may not have been a direct ancestor, of the species
which produced Shakespeare, Napoleon and Newton." Remains of the
unchanged ape are abundant. But the alleged human remains are scanty
and uncertain.' Now if there were millions and billions of human
beings developing from the brutes, should we not expect as many
remains as of horses and mammoths and apes? We do not have millions of
them, simply because they did not exist. Is not this well nigh a

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

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

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

Many species of animals have been larger than their modern
descendants. Many species show no change. All the bacilli remain the
same microscopic species, even those too microscopic to be seen or
isolated. They multiply the same, and produce the same diseases. How
can there be growth in the microscopic world either animal or
vegetable? The doctrine that there is a development and a growth
among all species of animals or plants, is contradicted by the
facts. If that doctrine were true, there would be no lower order of
animals after so many millions of years of growth. All would have been
large and of a high order like others. Since we find a majority of all
animal species less in size than the fly, there has been little growth
in most species, and in many, none at all. The amoebae, one celled
animals, smaller than a small pin-head, have existed unchanged since
life began. If plants and animals all developed from a one-celled
animal, such as the amoeba, why did not the amoeba develop? Or, if
some developed, why not all? Certainly there would not remain a great
multitude of species in the microscopic world.

Of many species small and large, we have many fossils preserved but
_no transitional forms_. The archaeopteryx, a bird with a
feathered tail, is the only alleged transitional form between the
reptiles and the birds. Only two specimens of this same animal have
been found. This could easily be an exceptional species of created
birds differing no more from the normal bird than the ostrich or
humming bird. If there were transitional forms we ought to have them
by the millions. No transitional forms have been found between
reptiles and mammals; and we have seen that there are no reliable
forms between man and mammals. The numerous missing links make a chain
impossible. Evolution is not simply growth or change, but the
development of all species from one germ.


Geographical Distribution, another witness claimed by the
evolutionists, bears testimony, which they are bound, in law, to

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

His law is simply the record of his acts. He executes his own will
with exact regularity. He does not vary. Hence, all his creatures may
depend on regularity. It seems like law. The power in every case is
the power of God. Law has no power. The law of gravitation has no
power. Matter has no power. One of the primary lessons we learn in
physics is the inertia of matter. Matter can not move, unless moved
upon; nor stop of itself, when once in motion. Absolutely powerless!
The power of attraction, which we may call a property of matter, is
really the power of God. The effects are the results of power and
intelligence. Law has neither power nor intelligence. Human law marks
out the course man _should_ pursue. Divine law records the
course God _has_ pursued. Human law must be enforced by all the
executive power of the nation. God executes his own will, with perfect
regularity; and, by courtesy of language, we call it "law." He is the
great executor of the universe, not far removed, but proven present
everywhere, by the power and wisdom necessary to produce the results.
These results are found in the boundless universe, and in the
microscopic world. They are found in the world far below the power of
the most powerful microscope to detect. All the combinations of
chemical elements are made, hidden from the eye of the microscope.
Substances are dissolved and new combinations made, atoms are
numbered, counted and combined with mathematical precision, and with
an intelligence difficult for man to compute. No law could do
this. Only a Being who has sufficient power and intelligence is equal
to it. Law has no power, nor intelligence. Water is composed of two
atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, combined with absolute precision
everywhere. All chemical reactions require computations of an
intelligent being. All nature teems with proofs that God is every
where present. The elements in a high explosive are arranged
instantly in new combinations, each atom taking its proper partners,
in the proper proportion, with unerring precision. Countless
calculations of the most difficult kind are made instantly and
continually by the divine mind. Thus God's presence everywhere in the
minutest forms of matter is clearly proved. It is a mathematical
demonstration. God is not wearied by the care of worlds and suns, and
systems and snow-drifts of stars on the highway of heaven, and takes
just as perfect notice of atoms and electrons. They who think God is
unable or unwilling to take care of the minutest division of matter as
well as the rolling suns, must have a very diluted idea of God. It is
now claimed that the atom, formerly believed to be the smallest
division of matter, consists of 1740 parts. Sir Oliver Lodge says that
the structure of an atom is as complex as that of a piano. This latest
scientific discovery detects the power and wisdom of God, controlling,
for ages, this minutest division of matter, undetected by the most
powerful microscope.

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

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

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

The earth turns over noiselessly every 24 hours, carrying on its
bosom, at the rate of 1000 mi. an hour, at dizzy heights, a most
tenuous atmosphere, without a rustle, without the loss of a second in
1000 years. The earth with its satellite, is traveling around the sun
at the rate of 18.5 mi. per second--75 times as fast as a cannon
ball,--bearing a load of 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons, and
arriving at a given point in its orbit, on exact time every tropical
year. It has arrived so promptly on time following its elliptical
course, at such a rate that the radius vector, a line from the sun to
the earth, passes over equal areas in equal times, furnishing every
moment an abtruse problem difficult for a scholar to solve. The orbit
is so vast that it varies from a straight line, but 4 in. in 666 mi.,
the distance from Philadelphia to Chicago.

The sun also, with its family of worlds and their satellites, is
plunging through space at the rate of 8.5 mi. per second; moreover,
there are swarms of huge suns, many larger than ours, moving in
straight-lines like a universe on a journey, and countless millions of
suns in swiftest flight through the skies, whose orbits and rates of
motion must all be calculated and controlled by a mind of amazing
power and intelligence.

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

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

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

Gravitation requires the computation of countless millions of the most
complex and difficult problems, every instant, by the divine mind. The
attraction of all matter for all other matter is in proportion
directly to the mass and inversely to the square of the distance. The
exact weight of every object is determined by the attraction of the
earth and every particle thereof, the mountain that may be nearby, the
elevation and altitude of the place, the attraction of the sun and the
moon, and every star in heaven, even though too small to be computed
by man,--all these are computed precisely by the divine mind. These
innumerable calculations prove that God is everywhere. We are
continually in the immediate awesome presence of an Infinite God.

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

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

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

How unscientific then seems the following declaration of Darwin: "To
my mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on
matter [How could that be?] by the Creator, that the production and
extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should
have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth
and death of the individual." It does not remove the First Great Cause
from active control of the world to call his acts "secondary causes."


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

The universe teems with countless evidences of intelligent design of
the highest order, whether it is found in the starry heavens, or in
the law and order of the atoms hiding from the most powerful
microscope. All things came by chance or by design. They say there is
no design. We wonder that the hand that wrote the lie was not
palsied. It would be, if the same Creator that filled every muscle,
nerve, bone, and tissue of the sacrilegious hand, with numberless
proofs of design, were not a long-suffering and merciful God.

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

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

THE HUMAN BODY. Can evolutionists imagine how the human body
could be crammed fuller of the clearest proofs of the most intelligent
design, indicating a mind of the highest order? Many of the most
remarkable inventions of man were suggested by the wonderful
contrivances found in the human body. Yet they say this marvelous
piece of ingenuity did not come from the hand of the Creator but was
developed by blind chance or "natural laws," without a trace of
intelligent design by the Creator, or by man or beast. The human body
can no more be a product of chance or causo-mechanical evolution than
a Hoe printing press, or Milton's Paradise Lost.

On high medical authority, we are told that there are in the human
body 600 muscles, 1000 miles of blood vessels, and 550 arteries
important enough to name. The skin, spread out, would cover 16 square
feet. It has 1,500,000 sweat glands which spread out on one surface,
would occupy over 10,000 sq. ft., and would cover 5 city lots, 20 x
100 ft. The lungs are composed of 700,000,000 cells of honey comb, all
of which we use in breathing,--equal to a flat surface of 2,000 square
feet, which would cover a city lot. In 70 years, the heart beats
2,500,000,000 times, and lifts 500,000 tons of blood. The nervous
system, controlled by the brain has 3,000,000,000,000 nerve cells,
9,200,000,000 of which are in the cortex or covering of the brain
alone. In the blood are 30,000,000 white corpuscles, and
180,000,000,000,000 red ones. Almost 3 pints of saliva are swallowed
every day, and the stomach generates daily from 5 to 10 quarts of
gastric juice, which digests food and destroys germs. Two gallons
daily! It is easy also to believe that the "very hairs of our heads
are numbered,"--about 250,000.

Yet many an upstart, with thousands of the most marvelous contrivances
in his own body, is ready to shout that there is no God and no design,
or that there has been no interference since creation, and that our
bodies have reached the dizzy heights of perfection, without
intelligence, purpose or design. Absurd in the highest degree! "We
are fearfully and wonderfully made."

THE EYE. Darwin says, "To suppose that the eye with all its
inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the
correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been
formed by natural selection, _seems, I frankly confess absurd in the
highest degree_." (Italics ours). After admitting that it "seems
absurd in the highest degree," he proceeds, as if it were certainly
true. Darwin has been admired for his candor, but not for his
consistency. After admitting that an objection is insuperable, he goes
on as if it had little or no weight. And many of his followers take
the same unscientific attitude. They try to establish their theory in
spite of overwhelming arguments.

"Reason tells me," he says, "that if numerous gradations from a simple
and imperfect eye, to one complex and perfect, can be shown to exist,
such gradation being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the
case" (certainly?), "if further," he continues, "the eye varies and
the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case" (most
modern evolutionists say certainly _not_ the case; what, if
variations are unfavorable?); "And if such variations should be
useful, (what if not useful?) to any animal under changing conditions
of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex
eye _could_ be formed by natural selection, _though insuperable
to the imagination_ (Italics ours) should not be considered as
subversive of the theory"!! Darwin undertakes a task far too great for
his mighty genius. "Believing that a perfect and complex eye could be
formed" is many moral leagues from proving that it was so formed. We
must have stronger proof than sufficient to lead us to believe that
such an eye could possibly be so formed. All proof is exhausted in the
struggle to prove the possibility of the formation of so marvelous an
eye, to say nothing of the probability, much less the certainty
required by science. We hold evolutionists to the necessity of
proving that the eye was _certainly_ so formed. We demand
it. Otherwise, we shall certainly "consider it subversive of the
theory." And if acquired by one species, how could it benefit another
species? But we must contest the claim that the wonderful eye of man
and animals _could_ have been formed by evolution. Darwin's whole
theory aims to account for all creation, with its super-abundant
evidences of design, by natural selection, which works without design
and without intelligence. The theory is founded upon the monstrous
assumption that unintelligent animals and plants, can, by aimless
effort arrive at such perfection as the organs of the human body,
exceeding anything in mechanical contrivance, invented to date by the
genius of man. Indeed, that wonderful invention of the telescope is
but a poor imitation of the eye, and does not begin to equal it in
marvelous design. Who would say that the telescope might have been
constructed by chance, or the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, or by
natural selection, or any other attempted method of blotting out the
great intelligent Designer of the universe? It not only "_seems_
absurd in the highest degree," but certainly _is_, and is fatal
to the theory.

The eye is so wonderful in its powers, and delicate adjustments, that
we stand amazed at the evidences of design, and at the wisdom of the
Maker of the eye, far exceeding the highest inventive genius of
man. To say that this is the result of "natural selection," is absurd
and ridiculous. Evolution eliminates design, mind, and an active and
ever present God, and substitutes blind chance or natural selection,
dubs it "science" and asks the world to believe it!

According to the evolution theory, the gain in the mechanism of the
eye causes its possessors to survive, and others to die. Is that true?
Are there not many species that survive, whose eyes are less perfect
than the eye of man? Indeed, it is claimed that many animals have eyes
superior to man. If so, why did man survive and become the dominant
species, with eyes less perfect? The compound eyes of some species are
superior in some respects, as every one knows, who has ever tried to
slip up on a fly. A scientist says that fleas have such perfect vision
that the darkness under the bed clothes is to them a glaring light.

Darwin makes a fatal admission, when he says, "To arrive, however, at
a conclusion regarding the formation of the eye with all its marvelous
yet not absolutely perfect characters, it is indispensable that the
reason should conquer the imagination; But I _have felt the
difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to
extend the principle of natural selection to so startling a
length_." (Italics ours). No wonder the reason and judgment of
mankind revolts against such a theory and that so many evolutionists
themselves reject it.

Three or four per cent. of the population are color blind--"red-blind"
--and are not able to distinguish the color of the green leaves from
that of the red ripe cherries. Can it be possible that the eye
becomes more perfect, because those who had less perfect eyes
perished, and only those who could recognize colors survive until
color blindness is finally eliminated? Is such a doctrine scientific?
Is it more reasonable to believe it than to believe that an infinitely
wise and powerful God created this organ of marvelous value and
beauty? Of course, the ability to recognize color is only one of the
many perfections of the eye.

Evolution is made so much more incredible, because it teaches that
every permanent improvement in the eye is made at the expense of
multitudes of individuals that perished because of the lack of the
improvement. The defect perished only because all individuals
afflicted with it perished. Is this true?

The bureau of education of the U.S. government reports that, of
_22,000,000_ school children examined, 5,000,000 have defective
eyes; 1,000,000, defective hearing; 1,000,000 have active
tuberculosis; 250,000, heart trouble; 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 are
underfed; total, 12,250,000,--more than half. Must all these
defectives perish in order that man may reach perfection? Less than
half are the "fittest" and they only could survive.

LOCATION OF ORGANS. But if the evolutionist _could_
convince the thoughtful student that the marvelous eye could have been
so formed, by blind chance or natural selection, how could he account
for the advantageous location of the eye and other organs? While we
can not well name a fraction small enough to express the mathematical
probability of the formation of the eye, the ear, and other organs of
the body, we easily can compute the fraction of the probability of
their location, though very small. In the passage quoted from Darwin,
he begins with the simple eye, but does not say how the eye
originated. Hon. William J. Bryan in his book, "In His Image," p. 97,
says, "But how does the evolutionist explain the eye, when he leaves
God out? Here is the only guess that I have seen,--if you find any
others, I shall be glad to know of them, as I am collecting the
guesses of the evolutionists. The evolutionist guesses that there was
a time when eyes were unknown--that is a necessary part of the
hypothesis. And since the eye is a universal possession, among living
things, the evolutionist guesses that it came into being,--not by
design or act of God--I will give you the guess,--a piece of pigment,
or as some say, a freckle, appeared upon the skin of an animal that
had no eyes. This piece of pigment or freckle converged the rays of
the sun upon that spot, and when the little animal felt the heat on
that spot, it turned the spot to the sun to get more heat. This
increased heat irritated the skin,--so the evolutionists guess--and a
nerve came there and out of the nerve came the eye. Can you beat it?
But this only accounts for one eye; there must have been another piece
of pigment or freckle soon afterward, and just in the right place in
order to give the animal two eyes."

Now assuming, what seems an utter impossibility, that the wonderful
mechanism of the eye can be accounted for by chance or natural
selection (another name for chance since design is excluded), how can
we account for the _location_ of the eyes, and, in fact, of all
the other organs of the body? We can easily calculate the mathematical
probability on the basis of natural selection. There are from 2500 to
3500 square inches of surface to the human body, a space easily 3000
times the space occupied by an eye. The eye, by the laws of
probability, is just as likely to be located any where else, and has
one chance out of 3000 to be located where it is. But out, of our
abundant margin, we will concede the chance to be one out of 1000, and
hence its mathematical probability is .001. For mathematical
probability includes possibility and even improbability. The compound
probability of two things happening together is ascertained by
multiplying together their fractions of probability. Now the
probability of the location of the second eye where it is, also is
.001. And the compound probability of the location of both eyes where
they are, is .001 x .001 or .000,001. In like manner, the probability
of the location of each ear where it is, is .001, and of the two ears
.000,001. The compound probability of the location of two eyes and two
ears where they are, is .000001 x .000001 or .000,000,000,001. The two
eyes and two ears have but one chance out of a trillion or a million
million to be located where they are. The location of the mouth, the
nose, and every organ of the body diminishes this probability a
thousand fold. We are speaking mildly when we say that this
calculation proves that the evolution of the body, by chance or
natural selection, has not one chance in a million to be true. So
ruthlessly does the pure and reliable science of mathematics shatter
the theory of evolution, which so called scientists claim is as firmly
established as the law of gravitation.

Concerning the wild guess of the development of the legs, we again
quote from Mr. Bryan, "In His Image," p. 98: "And according to the
evolutionist, there was a time when animals had no legs, and so the
legs came by accident. How? Well, the guess is that a little animal
was wiggling along on its belly one day, when it discovered a wart--it
just happened so,--and it was in the right place to be used to aid it
in locomotion; so, it came to depend upon the wart, and use finally
developed it into a leg. And then another wart, and another leg, at
the proper time--by accident--and accidentally in the proper place. Is
it not astonishing that any person, intelligent enough to teach
school, would talk such tommyrot to students, and look serious while
doing so?"

Some one has counted that Darwin has used phrases of doubt, like "We
may well suppose," 800 times in his two principal works. The whole
theory is built up on guesses and suppositions. "Let us suppose" that
each guess is 95 per cent certain, which is far higher than the
average or any. The compound probability would equal .95 raised to the
800th power which would be .000,000,000,000,000,006,281 which means
there are 6 chances out of a quintillion that evolution is true. Since
not all of these 800 suppositions are dependent upon each other, we
are willing to multiply this result by 10,000,000,000 which still
shows that the theory has less than one chance in a million to be
true. Darwin himself says, "The belief that an organ so perfect as the
eye could have been formed by natural selection, is more than enough
to STAGGER ANY ONE." Yet he and his followers refuse to be
"staggered," and proceed to argue as if this unanswerable objection
had little or no weight. _Any hypothesis is weakened or damaged by
every support that is an uncertain guess_. Gravitation has no such

Mr. Alfred W. McCann, in his great volume "God or Gorilla," shows that
H. G. Wells, the novelist _alias_ historian(?), in his "Outline
of History," uses 103 pages to show man's descent from an ape-like
ancestry, and employs 96 expressions of doubt or uncertainty, such as
"probably," "perhaps," "possibly," etc. He does not hesitate to
endorse the wildest guesses of the evolutionists, and sits upon the
top of this pyramid of doubt, and proclaims, _ex cathedra_,
apparently without a blush, of our ancestors: "It was half-ape,
half-monkey [elsewhere, he says the lemur was our ancestor]. It
clambered about the trees and ran, and probably ran well, on its hind
legs upon the ground. It was small brained by our present standards,
but it had clever hands with which it handled fruit and beat nuts upon
the rocks, and perhaps caught up sticks and stones to smite its
fellows. IT WAS OUR ANCESTOR."!!!

And he does not hesitate to give a picture of our ancestor drawn by an
artist 500,000 years after its death. Yet this book so dangerous, so
anti-christian, and so untruthful concerning the origin of man, is
recommended by careless librarians, by scholars, and even by
Christians. It will take a long time to erase from the mind of the
youth, the false teachings of this book. It is one of the most
cunningly devised plans ever attempted to teach infidelity and atheism
in the name of history.

PLANS FOR MAN PROVE DESIGN. All nature is crowded with evidence
that God intended to create man. He made great preparation for his
coming. He provided many things useful to man but to no other
species. Veins of coal, almost innumerable--the canned sunshine of
past ages--, are placed near the earth's surface, accessible for man,
when needed for his use. Of no value whatever to any other species,
because they can not make or replenish a fire. A colored preacher did
not miss the mark, when he said, "God stored his coal in his great big
cellar for the use of man." The man who fills his own cellar with
provisions for the winter exhibits no more foresight or design.

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

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


Evolution harmonizes with atheism and kindred false theories. This
raises a presumption against its truth, as falsehood does not agree
with the truth. It is reconcilable with infidelity and atheism, but
not with Christianity. Many, like Prof. Coulter, of the Chicago
University, endeavor to show that evolution is reconcilable with
_religion_--and he does show that it harmonizes with the religion
of deism or infidelity. No one doubts that evolution harmonizes with
atheism or the religion of Thomas Paine. But why should we be anxious
to reconcile it with Christianity, when there is so little truth to
support it?

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

Some believe the universe came into being by its own power, though
that can not be. Power or force cannot create itself. It must be
attached directly or indirectly to a person. No force can be
disconnected from its cause. Detached force is unthinkable. All force
in the universe can be traced to God. Much of the physical power of
the earth can be traced to the sun,--storms, cataracts, steam,
electricity,--and the sun gets its power from God. Gravitation,
extensive as the universe, is but the power of God in each case.

The total force in the universe _is_ beyond calculation. It is a
part of the power of Almighty God. It approaches infinity. All heat is
convertible into power, and power into heat. Heat, when converted into
power, moves the mighty engines. The power of Niagara may be converted
into heat and light. The sun had lifted the waters of the whole
Niagara River, and the lakes far above the Falls. Its power is
enormous. It lifts up over 1,000,000,000,000 tons of water to the
clouds every day,--more than all the rivers and streams pour into the
seas. The sun equals in size a pile of more than a million worlds like
ours. Every square yard of surface of this enormous sphere, has enough
heat to push a great liner across the sea,--as much power as in many
tons of coal. The amount of heat in the surface of the sun, consisting
of more than 2,284,000,000,000 sq. mi., can hardly be imagined. The
heat of one sq. mi. (3,097,600 sq. yds.) would drive 3,000,000 ships
across the sea,--150 times as many as are afloat. More than
2,200,000,000 times as much heat as the earth receives, goes out into
space. And this enormous amount of heat is but a poor fraction of the
heat of 400,000,000 suns, few of which are so small as ours.

A single star, Betelguese, has recently been computed to be
215,000,000 mi. in diameter, and therefore larger than 10,000,000 suns
like ours. A still more recent computation shows stars even
larger. Antares is 390,000,000 mi. in diameter, equal, to 91,125,000
suns, or 136,687,500,000,000 worlds. If our sun were in the centre of
this sun, it would extend beyond the orbit of Mars. Alpha Hercules is
300,000,000 mi. in diameter. Some stars are so far away that it takes
light 60,000 years to reach us, at the rate of 186,000 mi. in a
second. Some say there are 400,000,000 enormous suns. Compute, if you

Book of the day: