Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact

THEY say it is a woman’s right to change her mind, but we say it is the scientist that makes the most use of this feminine privilege. Is it not true that the theories of scientists change like women’s fashions? that what is in high esteem today may be derided in contempt tomorrow? that it is seldom safe to be dogmatic on any of the changing theories of scientists?

Why, look how they have changed their minds on this matter of evolution.a They used to vow that life started spontaneously in some mud puddle millions of years ago, but now science textbooks admit that this is not so, that no one knows how life started.

These scientists used to teach that environment caused changes in animals, which changes were passed on to offspring, which developed them further, till after thousands of years completely different animals evolved. But you know that is not true. You know Chinese women used to bind their feet, but it did not cause their babies to be born with deformed feet. Some tribes stretch their lips or bind their heads into queer shapes, but their babies do not inherit these deformed lips or heads. You can lie on the beach for years and become heavily sun-tanned, but your offspring will not be born sun-tanned. Now even the scientists realize such changes acquired in later life because of environment are not passed on to offspring. So the evolutionists have discarded this theory they once fanatically swore by.

Then came Charles Darwin, who said small variations occurred in the forms of animals, and that through natural selection and survival of the fittest the good variations were preserved and over the centuries accumulated till new families were formed. But today the up-to-date evolutionists indulgently smile at Darwin as a well-meaning chap, but do not take him seriously. As one of them said: “Darwin has been shorn of his theory as completely as Samson was shorn of his locks.”

And who was the modern Delilah that clipped Darwin’s hair? One he considered his supporter, geology. Geology is the study of the earth’s rocks and layers, and in these layers are found fossil forms of life that existed in the dim past. The evolutionist would have us believe that in this fossil record of the rocks we can see the story of life slowly evolving from small beginnings up to man. But honest investigation does not show us any fossils that connect two different animal families. Rather, it shows new families appearing suddenly, and that once in existence they did not change greatly. Geology testified against Darwin’s theory.

Moreover, geology dealt another devastating blow to evolution. First appearance of fossils is in earth layers evolutionists say are 500 million years old. But these first fossils are of life in such advanced forms that the evolutionists say life must have been in existence for 1000 million years before, because it would take evolution that long to get little one-celled animals evolved up to these advanced forms that are found in the first fossils. What does this mean? Why, it means that though they say life has been in existence for 1500 million years, they have fossil record of life back only 500 million years, and that therefore they have no record at all of the first 1000 million years of evolution! Two-thirds of the fossil record they need is a blank! May we suggest that the scientists not fret themselves too much looking for the missing link? What they need to find is the missing chain!

SHIFT TO SUDDEN CHANGES

At any rate, after geology so riddled the idea of slow evolving of life to bridge family after family, after it showed that the various families of life appeared suddenly and remained constant, the evolutionists changed their minds again, buried Darwin’s theory with mourning, and revised their teachings once more. As evidence of this revision, Doctor Clark, a Smithsonian Institution biologist and evolutionist, said no links connected major groups of animals, that the gaps were natural and not due to a deficiency in the fossil record, and he further said: “So far as concerns the major groups of animals the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.”

Doctor Clark’s confession is confirmed by a French scientist, an evolutionist, who wrote in his book Human Destiny: “Each group, order, or family seems to be born suddenly and we hardly ever find the forms which connect a new group with an ancient one.” He goes on to admit that reptiles appear suddenly, that they cannot be linked with any earthly ancestors, and makes the same admission about mammals. About birds he says they have “all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation”. Now, why should he call the “characteristics of absolute creation” “unsatisfactory”? Because to the evolution-religion creation is heresy!

Nevertheless, scientists have been forced to face the fact that new families appeared suddenly, with all the unsatisfactory characteristics of creation. So what do they do? Acknowledge creation? They would never dream of doing that! So they trot out a new theory that will let them face the fact of families appearing suddenly, without having to face creation. They now preach mutations. A mutation is a sudden change between parent and offspring, such as happens in the case of freaks.

Would it not be possible for a flood of mutations to quickly form a new family? Evolutionists would like to show this, but mutations are very rare in nature. However, scientists have learned that by subjecting the parents to atomic radiation they can cause a heavy run of mutations. So they have taken animals that reproduce quickly, subjected them to radiation, and thus noted changes that would ordinarily have taken many thousands of generations to get. They did this with a little fruit fly, and followed it through enough generations to turn an ape into a man, according to their theory. What, then, was the amazing change effected in the little fruit fly? Did it turn into a bumble bee? or a June bug? No; it was still the same little fruit fly they started with, still undergoing mutations that changed its eyes from red to white, and back again, that changed its wings from long to short, and back again.

And here is an odd thing. If mutations cause evolution, and if evolution made a man of us from nothing, why are the scientists so afraid of mutations? They are, for that is why they dread the aftereffects of atomic bombing. The radiation from such explosions causes mutations, and Life magazine recently reported scientists as saying: “The mutations among the Japanese exposed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki may plague the human race for thousands of years.” The fact is, small mutations weaken the species, big mutations produce freaks that soon die or cannot reproduce. Instead of evolving life upward to higher forms, mutations are harmful. Life magazine recently said: “Five years of tests have shown that radiation produces no abnormalities that do not occasionally show up in nature. No useful mutations have appeared, and none is anticipated.”

Well, there are the hard, cheerless facts facing the evolutionists who had hoped their failing theory could gain salvation by mutations. They grabbed at mutations as the straw to keep afloat their sinking theory, but that straw has become about as useful to them as a millstone around the neck of a drowning man, and once again the evolutionists are thrown face to face with creation. From the fog of wishful thinking the firm fact emerges that they do not have a shred of scientific evidence on which to base their fantastic, unscientific, senseless, silly theory of evolution!

EVOLUTION’S FOUNDATION

But their theory does have a foundation, and about the same adjectives can be used to describe it. This theory was taught in ancient Babylon. Traces of it are found in the religions of the Hindus and Mayans. Greek philosophers taught it in the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ. To this day savage tribes in many parts of the earth believe it. You have all heard of totem poles. Well, many tribes have their totem, which is usually an animal or plant, and they believe they descended from the animal that is their totem. On this the Encyclopædia Britannica says:

“The turtle clan of the Iroquois are descended from a fat turtle, which, burdened by the weight of its shell in walking, contrived by great exertions to throw it off, and thereafter gradually developed into a man. The cray-fish clan of the Choctaws were originally cray-fish and lived underground, coming up occasionally through the mud to the surface. Once a party of Choctaws smoked them out, and, treating them kindly, taught them the Choctaw language, taught them to walk on two legs, made them cut off their toenails and pluck the hair from their bodies, after which they adopted them into the tribe.”

Christendom’s clergy are quick to swallow this fairy tale of evolution. The Catholic Encyclopedia says under “Evolution”: “It is in perfect agreement with the Christian conception of the universe. That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man’s body is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine.” During August, 1950, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical on Catholic doctrine, and the official English translation showed that therein the pope did not forbid the study of evolution, but that such study should be limited to “inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God”. (New York Times, August 22) He opens the door to evolution of man’s body, while unscripturally separating the soul therefrom. Space forbids quoting Protestant and Jewish authorities, but many of them have similar views.

From all this we see that when evolutionists charge Bible believers with being old-fashioned, ignorant, gullible, believers in myths and legends and superstitions, they are only hurling a charge that boomerangs to crash back on their own heads! On the other hand, the Bible is the most up-to-date book, telling us of things to come in the next thousand years, of a blessed new world that will never end. Let us consider some of the Bible testimony concerning God’s creation, and see whether it fits the known scientific facts better than evolution. As Jehovah invites, “Come now, and let us reason together.”

REASONING TOGETHER

First reason about the earth. God says he made the earth, created it not in vain, formed it to be inhabited. The facts show he made it just right for us. If it rotated much faster or slower, if it were much closer or farther from the sun, or if the sun were much hotter or cooler than it is, we would roast or freeze. If the moon were much nearer to earth tides would cover lowlands, erode mountains, level continents, till water covered the entire earth. If the mixture of gases in earth’s atmosphere were much different, we would die. If the earth were not tilted on its axis we would have no seasons, water vapor from oceans would move north and south, fall as snow and ice at the poles, never melt, leave desert in between, and soon oceans would disappear and rainfall cease.

Consider man. The Bible says he was created in God’s image, with wisdom, justice, love and power. This explains the big gulf between man and any other animal. Man alone has ability to reason, determine right and wrong, manifest conscience, and has the urge to worship a higher power. Science says man uses but a small percentage of his marvelous brain. Evolution would not evolve something that was never used, but perfect man was created with his wonderful brain and used it in the beginning, though degenerate man does not now use it fully. Man was created far above all other animals, that he might be fitted to exercise intelligent dominion over them.

The Bible shows that man was created with the power of speech, and was able from the beginning to coin new words, giving names to the animals. Evolution says as man evolved from ape he also evolved his present speech from animal grunts and growls. The facts say No. A science magazine states: “Older forms of the languages known today were far more difficult than their modern descendants. Man appears not to have begun with a simple speech, and gradually made it more complex, but rather to have gotten hold of a tremendously knotty speech somewhere in the unrecorded past, and gradually simplified it to the modern form.” The Bible account fits these facts. Man started out with a highly developed language, but man’s speech has degenerated with him.

The Bible states that one human pair was created, and this pair was commanded to multiply and fill the earth. Now evolutionists admit all men descended from one original pair, that there is no real difference in races. A scientific magazine recently said: “The story of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis has been vindicated, in part at least, by science. Its main point is now generally accepted as true: namely, that there is only one human family . . . with a common origin.” The Genesis record of creation tells that God made each family group to reproduce after its kind, yet each family has power to vary widely within its family boundaries. That is why there is such variety in the cat family, dog family, or human family with its many races. That is why men can develop a variety of domestic horses or cows or chickens. But despite this ability to vary widely, each family reproduces after its family kind: cats have cats, dogs dogs, horses horses, monkeys monkeys, and men men. Cats do not have pups, or dogs colts, or monkeys human babies, no more than women have kittens. This Scriptural unchangeableness of family kind is proved by the fossil record.

Another point to reason on. Evolution means to develop upward, to improve. But facts say man is degenerating, morally and physically, the victim of increasing mental and physical ailments. Despite increase of hospitals, clinics, trained doctors, improved medicines and greater knowledge of the human body, the degeneration that set in with Adam’s disobedience continues. It has drastically cut down on man’s life span. Before the Flood men lived several centuries, a fact now confirmed by archeological discoveries. Those men were near to humanity’s perfect start in Eden; degeneration had not had time to cut into their life span so heavily.

TESTIMONY OF VISIBLE CREATION

All along the line, in every respect we see that the Bible account fits the facts of true science, while evolution is a misfit in every way. But obstinately ignoring the facts and shunning reason, men of science prattle their empty theory. Were they not so wise in their own conceit, so puffed up in their own knowledge, they could not fail to see the evidence of God’s creative power and wisdom all around them. They could see it when they peer through their telescopes at the star-studded heavens, or when they squint into their microscopes, even noting the tiny solar systems of the atoms. Without their telescopes and microscopes, they can still see God’s wisdom all around.

Man uses electricity? So does the electric eel. Man has artificial lighting? So does the firefly. He is a good engineer? So is the spider that spins a web, the bird that weaves a nest, the beaver that builds a dam, the wasp that manufactures paper, the bee that air-conditions its hive, the ant that builds bridges. Man can navigate the pathless seas of water and trackless oceans of air? So can the eels and birds that migrate for thousands of miles. And what about the moth that uses radio? the octopus that uses jet propulsion? and the bat that uses radar? Yes, what about all this? Should it not deflate the wiseacres of this world, to see that these little creatures of no intelligence have instinctively used man’s modern inventions for thousands and thousands of years? Men should see reflected in these things the wisdom and power of the Creator that made them. But do they? God’s Word answers: “Ever since the creation of the universe God’s invisible attributes—his everlasting power and divinity—are to be seen and studied in his works, so that men have no excuse . . . Their speculations about him proved futile, and their undiscerning minds were darkened. Professing to be wise, they showed themselves fools.”—Rom. 1:20-22, Twen. Cen. N.T.

Men of good will do not want to be found fools. They will reason on these matters, see how God’s Word fits the facts. They will not be stumbled by evolution while en route to Jehovah’s promised new world, but will discern that it is just an old-fashioned, unprovable pagan myth. They appreciate that Satan has revived it in these last days to blind men to the good news of the new world, that with this evolution bait he has hooked the wise and haughty, the puffed up and proud. It has become the chief stone of stumbling to trip up this wise, modern, brilliant generation of science worshipers. To such moderns science is a sacred cow—but their cow has gone dry so far as its being able to nurse evolution is concerned!

Armed with both scientific truth and Bible truth, Christians can prove God true, though it make all evolutionists liars.—Rom. 3:4.

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 421]

Spontaneous Generation

Acquired Characteristics

Natural Selection

Scientific Facts

Mutations