The Subject Considered The subject considered fairly requires a definition of terms which will describe the hypothesis as its adherents conceive of it. Le Conte does this when he deems evolution a “(1). continuous progressive change; (2) according to certain laws; (3) by means of resident forces.” This means, not necessarily that matter has existed forever, but that now evolutionists are searching for a beginning, and so are of the opinion that the origin of life “lies 5.5 billion years in the past” (Scientific American, Sept. ’56, p. 80). Primordial batter is thought to have begun in a simple one-celled organism, as the amoebae. The origin of the universe was once thought to have emerged from a pocket of ether or fiery mist, which somewhat in dust-devil fashion wrapped itself into a ball, gradually compacting itself into a tight solid, then cooled, but remained sufficiently warm to incubate life by spontaneous generation. This incubation began when the waters of the earth were squeezed out of the depths of its interior (Fred Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy, p. 42). Scripture, opposite to this, teaches that the earth, originally covered with water, had its submerged land masses emerge from the water (Gen. 1:9). Evolution says water was pressured out of the bowels of the earth, covered the terrestrial sphere with a “saline ooze,!” which required some long ages until the water developed a less saline content, a kind of sand, mud or slime mixture, so enabling the production of life. 

Evolutionists, however, admit that the question of the origin of matter and life remains unanswered. We have reason to believe that as long as they remain intellectually and scientifically honest (which in itself is an unanswered question), it will remain so. For evolutionist Vernon Kellogg says (After Its Kind, p. 28), “This mystery may, indeed, be for ever beyond human understanding.” Others express themselves similarly: “It is impossible, nowadays, to imagine how evolution began” (L. Du Nouy, Human Destiny, p. 57). “The ‘chasm between the not living and the living, the present state of knowledge cannot bridge” (Huxley); “Most naturalists of our time have given up the attempt to account for the origin of life by natural causes” (Haeckel). 

Still, they persist with their arguments for their unprovable philosophy. The “classification argument” follows. From the one-celled animal, the amoeba, there developed a simple invertebrate like the hydra (a fresh water animal 1/5″ long). Then later a higher invertebrate appeared, like the star-fish. Next came the lowest form of vertebrate, the amphioxus, (a sand burrowing half fish and half worm, about 2″ long). Higher in the scale, the jelly-fish, the fish, then the amphibia (e.g., frogs), then the reptilia, birds and lowest mammalia (as the opossum, dog or lemur). Beyond this the quadruped and lower ape stage (perhaps the tarsier) was reached, then the more advanced apes, the gorilla, and finally man. There is movement in this line toward a goal for man, namely that he become a demi-god, and eventually the undisputed god of the universe. This is viewed as quite within the realm of possibility. “Man can, if he will, take a hand in his own future evolution” (Exploring Biology, 4th ed., 497). Of this line of interpretation the great geologist, Sir J.W. Dawson said, “It is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is utterly destitute of proof” (Heresies Exposed, p. 70). 

The Claims Evaluated 

The claims evaluated in further scrutiny of the subject may indeed lead us to concede it possible to classify or arrange the many existent creatures in the order of an “increasing complexity.” Such an arrangement is easy to make. But we are not to conclude from it that it is correct, that it presents fact, or that it uncovers either man’s origin or his destiny. Plant life is similarly arranged, beginning with one single very low form of life, and gradually developing into the more complex structural forms, so that one species of plant evolved into a higher species in a perfectly natural way without any miraculous intervention. The vegetable kingdom, then, evolved from milkweed to mammoth Sequoia. But a man’s back porch may contain an orderly array of footwear, from baby booties, sandals, thongs, slippers, rubbers, sneakers, galoshes, brogans to seven league boots. From this phenomena we might suppose that within that “castle” there must live an “increasing complexity” of featherless bipeds! We rather say, as our opponents themselves admit, “that any descriptive chronological plan of evolution is extremely questionable” (Human Destiny, 62), and “we can only surmise, not prove it, and the whole process escapes us completely” (ibid., 97). “The truth is that nothing positive is known” (ibid., 98). There is no more progressive change than that which we find within the development of any one species from birth to maturity. The crossing of bridges from one species to another there has never been. 

Then there is the “comparative anatomy” proof, or the “homologies” argument, which proceeds on the basis of similarities of structure in the different groups of animals. In almost every biology or zoology textbook there is an illustrative plate reprinted from Huxley’s “Evidence As to Man’s Place in Nature,” which depicts the 19th century view of human evolution. This plate shows the skeletal structure of the gibbon, orangutan (Maylay for “man of the woods”), chimpanzee, gorilla, and man, respectively, the design being to show such similarity of structure as to suggest descent (or ascent?) of man’s ancestral line. But the gorilla, selected as the closest ancestor to man, has on its skull a high bony crest like the comb of a rooster, whereas man’s skull is well rounded and smooth on top and all around. Besides, the gorilla has thirteen pairs of ribs; man has twelve. The gibbon does not fit into the line because, though it has a stomach similar to man’s, and 12 pairs of ribs, its arms reach down below its ankles, placing it in a very low animal category. The chimp has shorter arms, but has 13 pairs of ribs. The only likeness the orang (man) bears to man is the angle of the bony structure of its forehead, which happens to be slightly higher than the other apes. It is worthy to note that the brain capacity of the apes never reaches higher than 600 C.C. The heads of the pygmies of Central Africa, the smallest human beings known, are much smaller than the average human skull, and are about 900 C.C. The largest human capacity may be approximately 1620 C.C. The only likeness the baboon bears to man is a faint resemblance in the spinal structure. All apes are equipped with feet having a thumb, instead of a big toe, and all walk on all fours. When they rest, they sit as dogs, squirrels, and rabbits. None of this suggests that man is a “made over ape.” The so called “fossil men” are actually conceded to he not men, but only parts ofmen, and not parts of missing links, and they are such parts as can never be reconstructed. There is not simply a (one) missing link, nor a few missing links, as the Piltdown hoax, and the other hoax men, but there are thousands of missing links, and not only between the apes and man, but in many other places along the imagined line of evolution. In fact, not only are there so many missing links, but whole chains are missing, so that it is scientifically impossible to relate man to the animals. So says Loren C. Eisley in Scientific American (June ’56, p. 98), who nevertheless adds, “If we accept the evidence of evolution, we must assume that man became man by degrees, that he emerged out of the animal world . . . over long ages.” Then he concludes his “scientific” view of man rather dazedly, “In the end we may shake our heads, baffled, and have to admit that many lives of seeming relatives, rather than merely one, lead to man. It is as though we stood at the heart of a maze, and no longer remembered how we had come there” (p. 100). Evolution by its own admission ends in confusion of face and futility. 

It is amazing after noting the above confessions to read, “It is almost impossible, nowadays, not to be an evolutionist” (Human Destiny, 66). We are forced to the stone wall of hard “reality” and so must become evolutionists! It is impossible not to be something! The reason why evolution finds any support at all is not because it is substantiated by direct observation, but because it is impossible to formulate any other alternate theory to that of the Christian position. Then it is even more amazing to read, “Nobody believes any longer that ‘man descends from the ape'” (ibid.). “Man does not descend from the monkeys” (94). Why not? is it because the whole idea has become thoroughly ridiculous? Or is it because man has now become enlightened enough to believe “the fact that man descended from the marine worms” (197)? The more we study evolution the more we become convinced that it is a tenaciously held “complicated childishness.” In a way, it is no wonder that evolutionists want to trace man’s origin to an aquatic worm, for the present jazz craze of the “beat generation” seems a likely development of the rhythmic gyrations of the sea-serpent or the jelly-fish. We may readily sympathize with the one who supposes that some of the human species have sprung from a spineless ancestry. 

The Verdict Rendered 

The verdict rendered against this theory with lasting effect is that of the Word of God. “If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them” (Is. 8:20). Evolution stands self-condemned, yet if we will not accept their tattered remnants as whole cloth, they will reply, “Intolerance is a proof of incomprehension” (ibid., 180). We do not understand—unless we agree with them! After telling us that they have no reasonable Foundation, and that none exists, at least none has yet been discovered, they proceed to condemn us for making no effort to stand on the non-existent! True, “Man far outranks all other organisms in many ways . . . He is the only organism capable ofreasoning . . . He has a high measure of control over his environment . . . Still another . . . language . . .” (Exploring Biology, 497). But it does not follow that “If it were not so, you Gould still be picking berries off the bushes and looking for a chance to catch a fish for breakfast” (ibid.). The bear is not our ancestor. Nor has any creature but man crossed the bridge of reasoning. No animal has ever approached the mathematical mind. The bridge of environment has never been crossed. The fish has never crossed over to become a mole or a bird. The bat has never left its environment to become a humming-bird. Each species remains within its own sphere. The bridge of language has never been crossed. No one Mistreated dog can “tell on” its cruel master. Animals cannot deliver a speech or vocalize thought. No lower creature has crossed the bridge of the human body. “All flesh is not the same flesh: hut there is one kind of flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (I Cor. 15:39). “All human blood is human blood. The flesh of the cow, the blood of the goat, the chromosome number of the monkey, the blubber of the whale, the temperature of the fish—none of these have any relation to the structure of man’s body. No transfusion works between man and” animal (O.E. Sanden in Twelve Bridges No Evolutionist Has Ever Crossed). 

Evolution has produced the infidel modernist. It has produced the denial of the full inspirati4n and inerrancy of Holy Writ. It has scattered the deleterious seeds of liberal “theology.” It has provided in the educational field the chief weapons of attack upon the Christian faith. It has destroyed Christian colleges and seminaries, turning them into propaganda mills for the social gospel and classless society. It has turned the gospel of the grace of God into the “gospel” of the brotherhood of man. Evolution is the fundamental philosophy of political liberalism, of theological modernism, of the false ecumenical church, of socialism, of atheism and of communism. Hear the end of this science falsely so called. “It is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent”‘ (I Cor. 1:19).