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

The Evolution Of Man Scientifically Disproved by William A. Williams

Part 2 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.

can, the sum total of the power causing the light and heat, and the
power of gravitation controlling these vast swarms of stars. All this
power is the power of God, and a weak fraction of the total. This
power could not originate itself. It could not grow. It could not come
by evolution. It could not come by chance.

The doctrine of the Conservation of Force, accepted by scientists,
proves that no part of force can be lost. A God of infinite power is
required to create, maintain and control this vast universe. Force can
no more create itself than matter. God must create and preserve both.
It takes almighty power to maintain the universe in existence, as well
as to create it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

20. SEX

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

The First Day's Work. Light Appears.

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

Second Day's Work. A Clearing Expanse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not

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

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

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

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

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

11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are _quantitative_,
or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species
are _qualitative_." Growth and development in one species does
not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles
Darden, of Tenn., was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but
remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and
heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who
lived in the days of Augustus.

12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the
extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent
rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food
might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the
past? Has it affected the human race?

13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says,
"This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of
historical interest."

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

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

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


Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the
highest authorities in the world, said:--"Nine-tenths of the talk of
evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly
unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter
falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a
particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in
that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist,
said: "There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or
was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature,
through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all
naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at
this time, a _shadow of scientific evidence_."

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

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

Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The
theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake,
untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in
its tendency.... There is not a fact known to science, tending to show
that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of N. Y. Academy of Medicine,
said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of
biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among
the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla,
orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."

Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record
of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the
abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without
apparent predecessors.... Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the
actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is
certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what
is told in Scripture."

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

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

Dr. James Orr, of Edinburg University, says: "The greatest scientists
and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be
absolutely dead."

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

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

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

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

Sir Charles Bell, Prof, of the University College of London, says:
"Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct
creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."

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


Agents for this 20,000 edition may show these selections, culled from
a mass of warm world-wide testimonials, by able critics, authors,
professors, editors, magazines, reviews, governors of states, and
rulers of nations. "Unanswerable;" "an absolute demonstration;"
"masterful;" "true to title;" "clear and convincing;" "scholarly and
logical;" "timely;" "terse;" "interesting;" "best I ever read;" "costs
$1, worth $5;" "fully disproves evolution;" also:--

"I finished your book today at two sittings. It is the most effective
polemic on the subject, I have yet seen. You have marshalled the
evidence of mathematics against the delusion of man's descent from
brute ancestry, with telling effect."--PHILIP MAURO, Noted Attorney
and Author.

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

"Evolution Disproved is a sober, fully sustained and very remarkable
book vindicating its title. It surely is one of the most conclusive of
books, tearing to shreds Evolution pretensions. Absolutely
unanswerable; in the very front rank of masterly books."--THE

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

"You certainly have given a masterful treatment of this
subject."--C. L. HUSTON, Chairman Com. on Evangelism, Pres. Church,

"Interessante" (French).--President of the Swiss Confederation.

"Filled with valuable matter systematically arranged; cogent."--S.S.
TIMES, Philadelphia.

"He shows the evolution of the soul to be impossible."--W. R. MOODY,
in Record of Christian Work.

"Unexcelled for brevity, clarity and intensity. A compendium of
facts."--W.C.F.A., which accordingly rewarded the author with honorary

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

"The greatest book of its kind."--PROF. M. F. LARKIN, head of the
International Textbook Co., Scranton, Pa.

"A very informing book."--Bp. NUELSEN'S, Sec., Zurich.

"A most remarkable book."--THE LUTHERANEREN (Danish)

"A vigorous book; a lively volume."--BELFAST (Ireland) NEWS.

"A strong argument."--GUERNSEY PRESS, Eng.

"A very remarkable and provocative book; shows patent evidence of
large research and shrewd thinking."--COURIER, Dundee, Scotland.

"I congratulate you on this scientific work so full of thought."--H.
SEIPEL, Chancellor of Austria,

"An excellent book."--Librarian of Ravenna University, Italy.

"An interesting attack on evolution."--Teachers World, London, Eng.

"A very excellent book."--REV. D. D. MARSH, Ont., Can.

"The best I ever saw."--R. A. McKINNEY, G. A. Com. of 100.

"Irrefutable; displays unusual information."--Dr. D.S. Clark. Phila.

"He writes from a new angle with great ability."--Luth. Church Her.

"Should do much good."--REV. F. HAMILTON, Pyongyang, Korea.

"I count your book a remarkably strong one. It clearly disproves every
claim of Darwinism."--DR. H. B. RILEY, President W.C.F.A.

"Of all books against evolution, the most unique. Its arguments are
effective and deadly, cumulative and convincing."--Bibliotheca Sacra.

"Our first order, 60 copies."--BIBLE UNION, Cape Town, S. Africa.

"Thanks" for EVOLUTION DISPROVED have been received from HUNDREDS of
foreign librarians and national rulers. Write what YOU think!




1. The PITHECANTHROPUS, which is a high sounding name for an
ape-man (from Grk. pithekos, ape, and anthropos, man) was found by
Dr. Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, in 1892, in Trinil in the island
of Java. It lived, it is said, 750,000 years ago. He found, buried in
the Pleistocene beds, 40 feet below the surface in the sand, _the
upper portion of a skull, a tooth and a thigh bone_. "It was
fortunate," says Dr. Chapin, "that the most distinctive portions of
the human (sic) frame should have been preserved, because from these
specimens, we are able to reconstruct (?) the being, and to say with
assurance (!) that his walk was erect in manlike posture, that he had
mental power considerably above the ape, (it will not do to be too
definite) and his powers of speech were somewhat limited. (A string of
guesses wholly unwarranted.) This man stood half way between the
anthropoid and the existing men."--Social Evolution, p. 61.

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

The small section of the brain pan, weighing but a few ounces, was
found about 50 feet from the thigh bone. One tooth was found 3 feet
from the fragment of skull, and one near the thigh bone, _50 feet
away_. Since the small section of the brain pan belonged to a
chimpanzee, and the thigh bone is that of a man, is it likely that
these scattered bones belonged to the same creature? Even if they did,
is it likely that these bones would be preserved in the sand 750,000
years, or even 375,000 years according to a later estimate? We know
that petrified skeletons, encased in rock, may be millions of years
old, but where are the unpetrified skeletons of men who lived even
5,000 years ago? If unpetrified skeletons could last 750,000 years,
there would be millions of them. Without a doubt, this skull of a
chimpanzee, and femur of a man, belong to a modern beast and a modern
man, buried by floods or earthquakes, or some other convulsion of
nature, or by slow accumulations. It is said that the Jerusalem of
Christ's day is buried 20 feet under the surface, by the quiet
accretions of the dust of 1900 years. Rome also has been covered up in
recent centuries. It would be easy for 40 feet of sand to accumulate
over the bones of a modern man or chimpanzee in a valley, in a few
centuries, if 20 feet of dust accumulated on the mountain city of
Jerusalem in 1900 years.

Elsewhere we have shown that an ape-man with a cranium of two-thirds
normal capacity must have lived at least 20,000,000 years ago,--one
third the period of animal existence; or even 166,666,666 years ago,
if we accept a later claim that life has existed 500,000,000 years. It
is absolutely impossible that a normal creature of the alleged mental
capacity could have lived 750,000 years ago, much less 375,000,
according to a later estimate cutting in two the first one. But the
quickest way to disprove these wild guesses is to check them up by a
mathematical test. If these bones are normal, such an ape-man could
not have lived at the time assigned. If they are not normal, they
prove nothing whatever for evolution. They can be duplicated now.

We are asked to believe that these scattered bones,--some the bones of
a modern brute, some the bones of a modern man--were preserved in the
sand 750,000 years and belonged to an ancestor of the human race,
while of the millions of his generation and of the generations
following for many thousands of years, we have not a trace! We are
asked upon such a flimsy pretext to accept a theory, unsupported by a
single compelling argument, and irreconcilable with numerous facts,--a
theory which takes away man's hope of immortality, destroys faith in
God and his inspired word, and in the Christian religion itself.
There is a limit. How much more truthful and majestic is Gen. 1:27:
"And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he

One distinguished evolutionist has said, "We might as well be made out
of monkey as out of mud. It is mud or monkey." Most of us would
retort, "I would rather be created a human being out of the filthiest
mud by Almighty God than owe my existence to the brainiest monkey that
ever lived." Please note, "The Lord God formed man of the _dust_
of the ground," not _mud_. The evolutionists are as wild in their
exegesis as in their guesses.

2. THE HEIDELBERG JAW. The second relic, in the order of time,
relied upon by the evolutionists to prove the brute origin of man, is
a "human jaw of great antiquity, discovered in the _sands_ of the
Mauer River, near Heidelberg." Hence, it is called the Mauer jaw, or
the Heidelberg Jaw, or Heidelberg man, or the high sounding Latin name
of Homo Heidelbergensis. It needs all the names that can be given to
it, to elevate it to the dignity of an ancestor. "This jaw was found
in undisturbed stratified _sand_, (sand again) at the depth of
about 69 feet from the summit of the deposit." Dr. Schoetensack, the
discoverer, says, "Had the teeth been absent, it would have been
impossible to diagnose it as human."

They say it is 700,000 years old, preserved in sand. A later estimate
says 375,000 years. (Any wild guess will do.) It resembles the jaw of
an ape, and the tooth of a man. Was it not likely the abnormal jaw of
a modern man, in historic time swept into the sands by the freshets
and floods of a few centuries? It is only fair to say that many
scientists of the evolutionary school, do not believe the Heidelberg
man an ancestor of our race. "These remains," says one, "show no trace
of being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape." Some claim
it a connecting link. Others deny it. Some say the find is of the
utmost value; others say it is worthless. All are guesses, wild
guesses at that. They hopefully reach out their hands in the night,
and gather nothing but handfuls of darkness.

Since a modern Eskimo skull has been shown by a distinguished
scientist to have the same appearance and peculiarities as the
Heidelberg jaw, it is easy to believe that this jaw can be duplicated
in many graveyards. Greater abnormalities, in great numbers, can be
found in the skeletons of modern man. Without doubt, this jaw belongs
to modern man, and has no evidential value at all in favor of

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

3. THE PILTDOWN MAN (OR FAKE). The next fragments of bones, in
chronological order, upon which evolutionists rely to prove their
impossible theory, has been called the Piltdown man. It has been more
truthfully called the Piltdown fake. Dr. Chapin gravely tells us
(Social Evolution, p. 67): "During the years 1912, a series of
fragments of a human skull and a jaw bone were found associated with
eolithic implements and the bones of extinct mammals in Pleistocene
deposits on a plateau, 80 feet above the river bed, at Piltdown,
Fletching, Sussex, Eng.....The remains were of great importance. The
discoverers regard this relic as a specimen of a distinct genus of the
human species and it has been called Eoanthropus Dawsoni. This extinct
man lived in Europe hundreds of thousands of years ago." We have
passed over 200,000 to 300,000 years since the Heidelberg man, that
have not yielded a scrap of bone, though according to the theory,
countless millions of ape-men must have lived in various stages of
development, in that great stretch of time. Why were not some of them
preserved? Simply because there were no ape-men. There are countless
relics of apes, but none of ape-men. Even Wells says: "At a great
open-air camp at Solutre, where they seem to have had annual
gatherings for many centuries, it is estimated there are the bones of
100,000 horses." Would we not expect as many bones of ape-men? While
Wells says the bones of 100,000 horses were found in a single
locality, Dr. Ales Hrdlicka says that the bones of 200,000 prehistoric
horses were found in another place. Why should we not find, for the
same reason, the bones of millions of ape-men and ape-women in 750,000
years? Instead of millions we have the alleged fragments of 4, all of
which are of a very doubtful character.

The bones of this precious Piltdown find consisted, at first, of a
_piece of the jaw bone, another small piece of bone from the
skull_, and a canine tooth, which the zealous evolutionists located
in the lower right jaw, when it belonged in the upper left; later, two
molar teeth and two nasal bones,--scarcely a double hand full in
all. An ape-man was "reconstructed" made to look like an ape-man,
according to the fancy of the artist. The artist can create an
ape-man, even if God could not create a real man! But scientists said
the teeth did not belong to the same skull, and the jaw could not be
associated with the same skull. Ales Hrdlicka says, "The jaw and the
tooth belong to a fossil chimpanzee." Conscientious scientists said
that the pieces of the jaw and skull could not belong to the same
individual. They constructed a scarecrow from the bones of an ape and
of a man, and offer this, without the batting of an eye, as a
scientific proof of the antiquity of man. The great anthropologist of
world-wide reputation, Prof. Virchow, said: "In vain have Darwin's
adherents sought for connecting links which should connect man with
the monkey. _Not a single one has been found_. This so-called
pro-anthropus, which is supposed to represent this connecting link,
has not appeared. No true scientist claims to have seen him." Sir Ray
Lancaster, writing to H. G. Wells, concerning the Piltdown find,
says, "We are stumped and baffled." Yet in spite of all this, nearly
1,000,000 persons annually pass through the American Museum of Natural
History in New York, and view the "reconstruction" according to the
artist's fancy, of the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the
Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, the "ancestors of the human
race;" and the multitude of high school students and teachers, as well
as the general public, are not told how dubious and unscientific the
representation is.

The brain capacity of the Piltdown individual (man or ape) is set down
by his discoverers at 1070 c.c., which is 28 2/3% short of the normal
skull capacity, 1500 c.c. Therefore, he must have lived 17,200,000
years ago, if we accept the estimate of 60,000,000 years since life
began; or 143,333,333 years ago, if we accept the later guess of
500,000,000 years. It could not have lived near the time assigned. In
short, no guess of the origin of man that differs materially from the
time assigned in the word of God, can be harmonized with the facts.

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

Dr. Chapin says, "The first important discovery of the existence of an
early example of mankind differing markedly from any living (?) and of
a decidedly lower type, was made in 1857, when a part of a skull was
found in a cave near Dusseldorf, Germany. The bones consisted of the
upper portion of a cranium, remarkable for its flat retreating curve,
the upper arm and thigh bones, a collar bone, and rib fragments." From
these fragments, an ape-man has been created (by the artist), about 5
ft. 3 in. high, strong, fierce in look, and having other
characteristics created by the artist.

Dr. Osborn assigns to the Neanderthal skull a capacity of 1408 c.c.,
which would indicate that he lived 3,680,000 years ago, if life began
60,000,000 years ago; or 30,666,666 years ago, if life began
500,000,000 years ago.

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

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

Some evolutionists say that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man,
the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, form an unbroken line of
descent from the ape, each in turn becoming less like the ape, and
more like man. Others claim that the pithecanthropus was the end of a
special branch of the apes; the Heidelberg man the last of another
extinct branch; the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man, likewise the
last of other extinct species. In this case, all four finds have no
evidential value whatever. All these confusing guesses from evidence
so scant and uncertain, stamp evolution a "science falsely so called."

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

It will be remembered that there is no complete skeleton among all the
remains, nor enough parts to make one altogether, nor to make any
large part of a skeleton,--not even an entire skull. What bones are
found are not joined together, and some of them scattered so widely
apart, that no one can be certain they belong to the same
individual. Some of the bones belong to an ape, and some to
man,--doubtless modern man. Ardent evolutionists, with a zeal worthy
of a better cause, have taken a fractional bone of a man, and a bone
of an ape, and fashioned a composite being, and called it an ape-man,
and their ancestor.

Every one of these finds is disputed by scientists, and even by
evolutionists. And all these doubtful relics would not fill a small
market basket. Yet some are ready to say that evolution is no longer a
guess or a theory, but a proven fact. Text books like Chapin's Social
Evolution are placed in the hands of pupils giving only the arguments
in favor, and the student, even if disposed to question this flimsy
and unsupported theory, is helpless in the hands of an adroit
professor. Dr. Gruenberg's high school text book teaches that man is
descended from the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg, the Piltdown and
the Neanderthal man, without the slightest intimation that such
descent is at all disputed or questioned. What right has anyone to
teach this false and unproved theory as the truth?


The claim that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown
man, and the Neanderthal man, were the ancestors of man, collapses
under the admissions of evolutionists themselves. The eminent Wassman
says: "There are numerous fossils of apes, the remains of which are
buried in the various strata from the lower Eocene to the close of the
alluvial epoch, but _not one connecting link_ has been found
between their hypothetical ancestral forms and man at the present
time. The whole hypothetical pedigree of man is _not supported by a
single fossil genus or a single fossil species_" (all italics
ours). Darwin says: "When we descend to details, _we can prove that
not one species has changed_." How, then, can man be descended from
the brute?

Even H. G. Wells, who seems ready to endorse the most extravagant
views, says (Outline of History, p. 69), "We can not say that it (the
pithecanthropus) is a direct human ancestor." On p. 116, is a "Diagram
of the Relationship of Human Races," showing that neither the
pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, nor the
Neanderthal man, could have been an ancestor of the human race,
because each were the last of their species, and therefore had no

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

Dr. Osborn says that the Heidelberg man "shows no trace of being
intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape." Again, speaking of
the teeth of the St. Brelade man, Dr. Osborn says, "This special
feature alone would exclude the Neanderthals from the ancestry of the
higher races."

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

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

In his "Men of the Old Stone Age," Dr. Osborn puts the
pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the
Neanderthal man, on limbs which _terminate abruptly as extinct
races_. They can, in no sense, then, be the ancestors of man, or
connecting links. Why, then, do they cling so desperately to these
alleged proofs, when they admit they have no evidential value? Only
sheer desperation, just as a drowning man will clutch a straw.

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

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

Prof. Bronco, of the Geological and Palaeontological Institute of
Berlin University, says, "_Man appeared suddenly in the Quaternary
period. Palaeontology tells us nothing on the subject,--it knows
nothing of the ancestors of man_."

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


To bolster up the hypothesis, that some of the scraps of bones
belonged to ape-men; who lived about 50,000 years ago, we are told
that, in many caverns there are paintings of animals, some of which
are extinct, proving that the artists were ape-men of advancing
intellect, living in that day. These drawings are rude, and inexact,
and the resemblance to extinct animals rather fanciful. If the writer
were to try to draw a picture of a horse on the stone walls of a dark
cavern, with no light, it would be just as likely to resemble an
extinct animal, or possibly an animal that never did live and never
will. Many of the paintings are found in the depths of unlit caverns,
often difficult of access. How could they paint any picture in the
dark, when even fire was unknown, and the torch and lamp-wick had not
yet been invented? And how could they make a ladder, or erect
scaffolding of any sort in that rude age, before there were inventions
of any kind? Yet they tell us that the frescoes on the ceiling of the
dark cavern of Altamira, Spain, were made 25,000 to 50,000 years ago,
when fire was unknown, and they ask us to believe that several colors
are used, brown, red, black, yellow, and white; and that these
drawings and colors have remained undisturbed and unchanged through
these long ages. Is it easier to believe this, than to believe that
these drawings were made by modern man, using modern inventions? A
theory left to such support, must be poverty-stricken in argument


The claim is made that the so-called rudimentary organs in the human
body such as the appendix, are the remnants of more complete organs
inherited from our animal ancestors. It is a strange argument that a
once complete and useful organ in our alleged animal ancestors, when
it becomes atrophied in man, causes such an improvement and advance,
as to cause man to survive, when his ancestors with more perfect
organs became extinct. Man with less perfect organs became the
dominant species. If the perfect organ were better than the
rudimentary organ, how can man be the "survival of the fittest"? If
rudimentary organs are a proof of descent from animals with more
extensive, if not more perfect, organs, then both man and monkeys must
be descended from the rat, which has the longest proportionate
appendix of all. If unused muscles speak of our ancestry, the horse
has the strongest claim to be our ancestor.

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

Physicians have found the appendix very useful in preventing
constipation, which its removal usually increases. If we only knew
enough, we would, no doubt, discover a beneficial use for all the
so-called vestigial organs. Our ignorance is no argument against the
wisdom of their creation. The claim that human hair is vestigial is
spoiled by the fact that there is none on the back where most abundant
on simians.


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

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

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

Dr. W. W. Keen, Prof. Emeritus of Jefferson College, Phila., in his
book, "I believe in God and in Evolution," on p. 48 says, "Here again
you perceive such identity of function, that the thyroid gland of
animals, when given as a remedy to man, performs precisely the same
function as the human thyroid. Moreover, it is not the thyroid gland
from the anthropoid apes that is used as a remedy but that from the
more lowly sheep." Again the force of Dr. Keen's argument goes to
prove, so far as it has any weight, that we have a nearer kinship to
the sheep than the ape. Children are nourished by the milk of the cow,
the ass and the goat, not of the ape. Vaccine matter is taken from
the cow and serums from the horse, not from any species of monkey, to
which we do not seem to be related at all.

The conclusions of the blood tests are unreliable and uncertain. W. B.
Scott, an expert evolutionist, says, "It must not be supposed that
there is any exact mathematical ratio between the degrees of
relationship indicated by the blood tests, and those which are shown
by anatomical and palaeontological evidence.... It could hardly be
maintained that an ostrich and a parrot are more nearly allied than a
wolf and a hyena, and yet that would be the inference from the blood

Prof. Rossle, in 1905, according to McCann, presented evidence to show
that the blood reaction does not in any manner indicate how closely
any two animals are related; and that evidence based on resemblance of
blood is not trustworthy in support of a common relationship. In many
cases, transfusions of the human blood into apes have positive
reactions. We do not make pets of the ape, baboon or chimpanzee, but
of the dog whose traits are far more nearly human. If any brute
ancestor is possible, have not the evolutionists guessed the wrong


Embryology, or the Recapitulation Theory, is the last, and perhaps the
least important of the claims advanced in favor of evolution. It is
claimed that the whole history of evolution is briefly repeated in the
early stages of embryonic life. W. B. Scott, in the "Theory of
Evolution," says, "Thirty years ago, the recapitulation theory was
well nigh universally accepted. Nowadays it is very seriously
questioned, and by some high authorities is altogether denied."

It is hard to see why the history of the species should be repeated by
the embryo. It is difficult to crowd the history of ages into a few
days or weeks. It must be enormously abbreviated. It is a physical
impossibility. Changes caused by many environments must take place in
the same environment, contradicting the theory of evolution. So many
exceptions must be made that there can be no universal law. Such
general similarity as we find in embryonic life, may be accounted for,
on the ground that the Creator used one general plan with unlimited
variation, never repeating himself so as to make two faces or two
leaves or two grains of sand exactly alike.

"Embryology is an ancient manuscript with many of the sheets lost,
others displaced, and with spurious passages interpolated by a later
hand." It is hard to construct a syllogism, showing the force of the
argument from Embryology. Try it.

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




Evolution fails to account for the origin of the body of man. Still
more emphatically, does it fail to account for the origin of the soul,
or spiritual part of man. This is part of the stupendous task of
evolution. Its advocates give it little or no attention. We are not
surprised. If they _could_ show the evolution of the human body
_probable_ or even _possible_, they can never account for
the origin of the soul, save by creation of Almighty God. We can not
release evolutionists upon the plea that they cannot account for the
faculties and spiritual endowments of man. This is a confession of
complete failure. Though invisible to the eye or the microscope, they
are positive realities. They can not be dismissed with a wave of the
hand or a gesture of contempt. We have a right to demand an
explanation for every phenomenon connected with the body or soul of
man. The task may be heavy, and even impossible, yet every hypothesis
must bear every test or confess failure. They have undertaken to
propose a scheme that will account for the origin of man, as he is,
soul and body, and if they fail, the hypothesis fails.

How do we account for the existence of each individual soul? It can
not be the product of the arrangement of the material of the brain, as
the materialists do vainly teach. It can not be the product of
evolution, nor a growth from the father or mother. The soul is not
transmitted to be modified or changed. It is indivisible. The soul of
the child is not a part of the soul of either parent. The parents
suffer no mental loss from the new soul. It must be created before it
can grow. God creates each soul without doubt, and so God created the
souls of Adam and Eve. If creation is possible now, it was possible at
the beginning of the race. If God creates the soul now, analogy
teaches strongly the creation of the souls of Adam and Eve. If
evolution be true, there was no creation in the past, and is none
now. This is contradicted by the facts every day and every hour.


An evolutionist writes: "We do not undertake to account for
personality." We reply, "That is a part of your problem. You have
undertaken to solve the riddle of the universe by excluding all
evidence of an existing and active God, and we can not release you
because a feature of the problem may be unusually difficult or
embarrassing, or even fatal to your theory. It is a fight to the death
in the interest of truth; and we purpose to use every weapon of
science against a theory so unscientific, so improbable, so far
reaching, and so baneful in its effects. It takes faith, hope and
comfort from the heart of the Christian, destroys belief in God, and
sends multitudes to the lost world."

Personality is consciousness of individuality. When did personality
begin? When did any members of the species become conscious of
personality? When did they begin to realize and to say in thought, "I
am a living being." What animals are conscious of personality? Any of
our cousins of the monkey tribe? Is the horse conscious of
personality, or the ox, the cat or the dog? If so, does the skunk have
personality, the mouse, the flea, the worm, the tadpole, the
microscopic animal? If so, do our other cousins have personality,--the
trees, the vines, the flowers, the thorn and the brier, the cactus and
the thistle, and the microscopic disease germs? If so, when did
personality begin? With the first primordial germ? If so, were there
two personalities when the germ split in two, and became two, animal
and plant? You can not split a man up into two parts with a
personality to each part. Personality is indivisible. It is a
consciousness of that indivisibility. If personality began anywhere
along the line, where, when, and how did it originate? Was it
spontaneous, or by chance, or was it God-given? Beyond all question,
it was the gift of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator, and in no
sense the product of evolution. God made man a living soul.

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

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


The activity and energy of the soul are shown in the intellect, the
emotions and the will. What evidence of these do we find in the animal
world? Do we find intellect in the lobster, emotions in a worm, or
will in an oyster? Whence came these elements of spiritual strength?
If developed by evolution, where, when, and how?

Have the most advanced species of animals an intellect? Do they have
the emotions of love, hate, envy, pity, remorse or sympathy? Has a
worm envy, a flea hate, a cat pity a hog remorse, or a horse sympathy?
If these existed in so-called pre-historic man, when, where, and how
did they begin? No one can answer, because there is not a trace of
proof that they ever existed.

Will natural selection explain the development of the mental
faculties? Was art developed because those who lacked it perished? Do
we account for the musical faculty, because those who could not sing
perished? Some still live who ought to be dead! Do we account for
humor because they perished who could not crack a joke? Will all
eventually perish but the Irish, who will survive by their wit? Is
anything mentioned in science quite so ridiculous as natural

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


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

If reason came not from God, but from evolution, should we not expect
it well developed in evolutionary man, since for the last 3,000,000
years he must have been 95 to 100 per cent, normal. If we grant the
estimate of 500,000,000 years, he would have been 99.4% normal for the
last 3,000,000 years. Would we not expect in that time a world of
inventions and discoveries, even surpassing those of the last 100
years? The Chinese claim a multitude of inventions and a race so
nearly normal as ape-men, ought to have invented language, writing,
printing, the telegraph, phonograph, the wireless, the radio,
television, and even greater wonders than in our age.

There is no trace of intelligence in man in all the 3,000,000 years,
prior to Adam.

We should have many works excelling Homer's Iliad, Vergil's Aeneid,
and Milton's Paradise Lost. We have no trace of a road, or a bridge,
or a monument, like the pyramids. That no race of intelligent
creatures ever lived prior to Adam is proven by lack of affirmative
evidence. If it be true, as Romanes declared, that the power of
abstract reason in all the species was only equal to that of a child
15 months old, then each species would possess less than one millionth
of that.


If the origin of the mental faculties can not be accounted for by
evolution, much less can the moral faculty, the religious nature and
spirituality be accounted for.

The most confirmed evolutionist will not claim that the tree or the
vine or the rose, or perhaps any animal, has a conscience. If,
however, conscience is a growth or development, why should it not
exist in some measure in both the animal and the vegetable kingdoms?
Has any brute any idea of right or wrong? Has a hog any idea of right
or wrong, of justice or injustice? What animal has ever shown regret
for a wrong, or approval of right in others? If conscience is a
development within the reach of every species, many of the million or
more, no doubt, would have shown some conscience long ago.

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

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

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

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

The heart sickens at the brightest picture evolution can paint. The
difficulty of showing the evolution of the body is insuperable, but
the evolution of the soul, with all its mental, moral and spiritual
equipment, is an absolute impossibility. Small wonder that
evolutionists are unwilling to discuss the origin of the soul.


Does any plant or animal worship God? How much theology does a cow
know? What does the horse think about God? What animal lives with an
anxious desire to please God? How many are desirous of obeying God?
How many species trust Him? How many love Him? How many pray to Him?
How many praise Him for his goodness? Evidently no animal knows
anything about God, or ever thinks of worshiping Him.

Man alone worships God. When did he begin? The idea of God seems to be
in the hearts of all except the dupes of evolution, and the
Bolshevists of Russia. The great problem to explain is how the worship
of God began, and why man alone now worships Him.

Personality, reason, intellect, emotions, will, conscience,
spirituality, and all the faculties and equipment of the soul, are
naturally and easily explained upon the basis of creation, but
evolution can not account for them at all.

About 2,000,000 years ago, we are told, man and the monkey family were
children of the same parents. These children headed species with an
even start. Yet man alone developed personality, consciousness,
intelligence, and all the equipment of the soul; all the others
remained stationary. This is incredible. It is inconsistent with
mathematical probability. Is it likely that one species and one alone
out of a million, with similar environments, would reach these high
mental and spiritual attainments? No! "God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him,"-Gen. 1:27. This
declaration explains all the difficulties which are insuperable to the

"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him."
This likeness was not a physical likeness as a learned (?) university
professor asserted, but a likeness in _knowledge, righteousness and
holiness_. No animal is made in the image of God. There is not the

Book of the day: