by John Raymond Hand, B.A., B.S., Sc.D.

1968 edition (First published 1959)

BARRICADES on the evolutionary trail....

  • 1. The Question of Life
  • 2. Gap Between Animal and Vegetable Kingdoms
  • 3. Life Reproduced by Life
  • 4. The Formation of Species Lines
  • 5. Why No Transitional Forms?
  • 6. What Stopped The Evolutionary Process?
  • 7. Embryos Do not Propagate
  • 8. The Sterility of Hybrids
  • 9. Reversion to Type
  • 10. The Failure of Evolution
  • 11. Conflict of Theories of Evolution With Records
  • 12. The Co-existence of Types
  • 13. The Constant Number of Species
  • 14. The Question of Method
  • 15. The Preservation of Species Lines
  • 16. The Mathematical Difficulty
  • 17. Attempts to Crush Opposition

  • "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the Light of men" (John 1:1-4).
    "Eavesdroppers hear no good of themselves."
    "íTis an old adage but true, as I learned once upon a time although, in truth, I was not an intentional eavesdropper. I was speaking in my old home town in southern Indiana. Two former schoolmates had done me the honour to come to my service. One was a teacher, the other a physician. We had had a very happy reunion at dinner and I had invited them. To my surprise they had accepted the invitation, so I had known that they would be present. I am sorry to report that I had toned down my remarks a little because of their presence. As I made my way to the rear of the church after the service I saw them near the door. They were standing with their backs toward me in conversation together. They were evidently waiting for me.
    "What did you think of it?" I heard the teacher ask as I approached.
    "Crazy as a March Hare, isn't he?" the physician replied with a chuckle.
    I stepped backward and spoke to another old friend, purposely raising my voice so the two at the door could hear me and be warned of my nearness. Then I went on and joined them.
    "I thought you took your degree in science, Jack," the teacher said with a grin and a sly wink at the physician.
    "That's right," I answered.
    "And taught physics, I believe?"
    "Another bull's eye," I admitted.
    "Then I would think you would have a rational approach to the problems suggested by natural phenomena."
    "I do have a rational approach " I replied.
    "But from your address tonight," the physician interposed, "we gathered that you accept the Genesis theory of creation."
    "I accept the Genesis record of creation," I affirmed with due emphasis.
    They looked at me for a moment with an amused expression on their faces, then at one another. The physician made a motion near his temple with the forefinger, indicating that I had wheels rotating in that immediate vicinity. Then they laughed heartily as we shook hands and parted. I might add that I joined in the laugh for "he who laughs last, laughs best."

    This incident is not unique in my hectic and heroic career, especially when I meet with friends of my unregenerate days. When I suggest that the Genesis record is the most logical explanation of life as it is today on our planet, they are prone to regard me with a "too bad and he showed such promise" expression and then change the subject. It causes me to wonder. Am I rational? I maintain that I am, yet I seem to be an insignificant minority on the subject. But allow me to state my case, and then you can form your own conclusion.............

    My interest in the evolutionary hypothesis dates from a very early period of my life. I was born to a family of school teachers and, with one exception, all of them were religious liberals. I first saw the light of day just twelve years after the trial of Doctor David Swing for heresy. It was this trial that had brought "Darwinism" as it was called then into the focus of public attention. The churches largely condemned Doctor Swing for his stand on the subject; the intelligentsia in general defended him. Our whole family sprang to the battle lines with avidity. There was little contention among us, however, for with the one exception, my paternal grandmother, all defended the doctor for his courage.
    For me the result was that it never even occurred to me to question the pronouncements of the disciples of Darwin. I read voraciously everything that I could obtain on the subject and there was little published on the subject that did not eventually find its way into our home. By the time I reached college age I had swallowed the whole thing hook, line, and sinker. My training was all in secular schools and they completed what the home had begun. I was a wild-eyed and rabid evolutionist, ready to meet all comers on the subject.

    Nearly a half century ago, however, as a young instructor in physics, I began to ask questions. In the field of mathematics, when one sees a two plus two he naturally expects to find a four as the result of the equation. If he does not find it he starts out on a still hunt to ascertain where the difficulty lies. I had found a number of such equations as I pursued the evolutionary trail. In the language of the street, "the thing just did not add up." This fact brought me face to face with an urgent need to reassess my data. As I retraced my steps along the evolutionary trail I found to my surprise that I had detoured around many mountainous barricades; I had utterly disregarded many "bridge out" signs and had waded through many muddy sloughs of error as a result. Finally I was forced to reject the whole thing and seek another solution to the equation, a solution which I am happy to say I have found.

    All of this happened long before I was a Christian. All I knew of the Bible at that time was that it was a large black book on the top shelf of the wardrobe. I literally was driven to a theory of creation before I knew that there was a record of creation which was perfectly rational. At least it appears rational to me, but of course I must not forget that I am considering the question of my own rationality.

    In defence of my position - my present position - I want to suggest a few of the barricades which I discovered as I retraced my steps along the evolutionary trail, some of the unwarranted and erroneous conclusions which I had accepted without question, and some of the deliberate deceptions and hoaxes that have been perpetrated upon a trustful and gullible public in an effort to salvage a lost cause. Consider them impartially and then reach your own conclusion as to whether or not I am rational. Allow me to remind you that I am not a scientist , nor do I presume to speak as such. If you are looking for authoritative pronouncements I have nothing to offer you. But if you want the low-down on how a two by four schoolmaster fought a losing battle with a scientific subject, read on. I was that schoolmaster; I can speak with authority as far as that battle is concerned.
    The evolutionary hypothesis, stated simply, is that all life was developed from some primordial protozoon such as the fresh water amoeba by a process of species change. Many theories of evolution have been built upon this hypothesis. As a matter of fact, the hypothesis itself is about the only point of agreement between the advocates of the idea. There are almost as many theories of evolution as there are evolutionists.

    Contrary to the general idea, Charles Darwin was not the originator of the idea of evolution. Since the beginning of recorded history we find that men have tried to solve the riddle of life by spinning theories of development, growth, and change. The doctrine of the transmigration of the soul, found in most of the natural religions of man, is but a feeble grasping after a theory of evolution. Man has been seeking for a solution of life ever since life began; none has ever succeeded even to his own satisfaction. Three centuries before the birth of our Lord, Aristotle, the Grecian philosopher, taught a well-defined theory of evolution based upon conclusions of his predecessors. We even find suggestions of the idea on Babylonian and Egyptian monuments.

    The real father of modern evolutionary teaching was Jean Baptiste Lamarck, although Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles, was before him chronologically. By the publication of his Philosophie Zoologique in 1809 and his giant seven volume Animaux sans Vertèbres in 1815-22, interest was revived in the subject and there was a great increase in biological and zoological research. Charles Darwin was born in 1809 and his interest in the subject was undoubtedly influenced greatly by the work of Lamarck.

    Lamarck believed that species change was caused by the use or disuse of faculties. Darwin and Wallace, appearing simultaneously a few years later, rejected his conclusions in favour of natural selection and survival of the fit. Vital objections were soon raised against the Darwin-Wallace theory, however, and there was a tendency to revert to the adaptation theory proposed by Erasmus Darwin, or its variation as advanced by Buffon and Yung.

    It was this confusion among the leading advocates of the hypothesis that caused me to take the backward trail in the first place. I was seeking a reason for this lack of basic agreement. One does not expect absolute unanimity even with men of an exact science. Yet if your son falls off a barn and you call a dozen physicians, you rather expect them to be able to agree whether the youngster is suffering from a fractured skull, a broken leg, or a sprained ankle. Especially would you expect it if you gave them two or three years and all the advantages of modern hospital equipment to make the diagnosis. Why then could not scientists reach some sort of agreement on the basic facts of evolution in two or three millennia? It was in my search for an answer to this question that I discovered the barricades mentioned before and to which I want to call your attention in this booklet.


    The question of life itself

    "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7).
    Where and how did life originate? For this question evolution has no answer; it does not even pretend to have an answer. Thomas Henry Huxley declares:
    "Looking back through the prodigious vistas of time, I find no record of the beginning of life, and, therefore, I am devoid of any means of forming a conclusion as to the conditions of its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter and requires strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which life forms have originated, would be using words in the wrong sense."
    This, in general, is the position of accredited scientists upon the subject. Life is here; there is no evidence as to how it originated. One thing is certain, however, if we leave God out of the picture: life must have originated from non-living matter. Geologists tell us that there was a time in the history of the earth when life as at know it could not have existed. The Bible agrees with this statement. The picture given is in agreement with the story told by the rocks. Thus if we appeal either to science or the Bible, we find ourselves facing a lifeless beginning for the world; and, if we eliminate creative energy, life must have begun from a spontaneous process generated in inorganic matter by an unknown force. Quoting Huxley again:
    "If the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter must have originated from non-living matter for, by that hypothesis, the conditions on the globe were at one time such that living matter could not have existed, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state."
    Yet there is absolutely no evidence known to science that life has ever so originated. In fact the evidence is all opposed to such an idea. Joseph LeConte writes:
    "If life did once arise spontaneously from any lower forces, physical or chemical, by natural processes, the conditions necessary for so extraordinary a change could hardly be expected to occur but once in the history of the earth. Yet they are now not only unreproducible, but unimaginable."
    Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University) states it thus:
    "We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and experimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life."
    Professor T. L. More (Physics, University of Cincinnati) says:
    "To talk of the evolution of thought from sea slime to amoeba, and from amoeba to a self-conscious thinking man, means nothing; it is the easy solution of the thoughtless mind."
    The prodigality of nature in the production of life germs is one of the best known of all natural phenomena. Henry Field, the Iowa seed man, declared in a radio broadcast, that, if we were to start in April with a single pair of houseflies and allow them to reproduce naturally, and, if all of their progeny lived and were allowed to reproduce naturally in their turn, by the last of September the whole earth would be covered with houseflies to a depth of 49 feet. I do not know whether Henry figured this one himself or not, but I have no trouble whatever in believing it. I have trodden the massive carpets of pine needles in the forests of the south and I have observed something of the spawn of fish, to say nothing of short experiences in breeding guinea-pigs and Flemish Giant rabbits.
    Knowing this to be true, and granting that life was started by a combination of elements under unknown conditions, is it possible to believe that in all of the multiplied millions of years claimed by evolutionists as the earth's span of life is it possible to believe that but one such combination has been produced? My bump of credulity is large and well developed but it is not equal to a strain like that. Actually research has tended to widen rather than to narrow the gap that exists between organic and inorganic matter. Edmund Wilson (Columbia) says:
    "As early as 1855 Virchow positively maintained the universality of cell division, contending that every cell is the offspring of a pre-existing parent cell. Today this conclusion rests on a foundation so firm that we are justified in regarding it as a universal law of development. The study of the cell has on the whole seemed to widen the enormous gap that separates the lowest forms of life from the inorganic world."
    Doctor McNair Williams (Oxford, Editor Medical Publications) says:
    "Modern medicine and surgery are founded on the truth enunciated by Pasteur, that life proceeds only from life and only from life of the same kind and type."
    Thus, at the entrance to the evolutionary trail, we find a positive and impassable barricade. It is a barricade admitted even by the men who claim to have travelled the trail. How they negotiated the entrance is a deep and dark mystery. To a layman there is no solution. He must either leap over this barricade or detour around it. There is no bridge and it cannot be ignored - not by a layman, I mean. Life is here; but whence and how it came the most highly-trained human intelligence will not even venture to guess. Thus the hypothesis of evolution and every theory so hopefully built upon it must begin with a supposition. How can we travel a trail when we are barred from entering it? Of course, we cannot travel it, but let us do a little supposing on our own. We will suppose that we are evolutionists and accept the wild and harebrained supposition that life generated spontaneously from inorganic matter by some unknown combination of elements. (There will now be a long pause while the author makes necessary repairs to his supposer.) And immediately we find ourselves facing a new and even more puzzling barricade than the first one. It is:-


    The gap between the animal and vegetable kingdoms

    "And God said "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit AFTER HIS KIND, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so" (Genesis 1 :11).
    At some remote period in the evolutionary history, unknown and even un-guessed at by evolutionists, themselves, life was separated by an unknown cause and by an unknown method into two different - and radically different - spheres or kinds. They are called the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Between these two spheres there is an unbridged gap even more difficult to understand than the gap that exists between the organic and inorganic spheres.

    Many questions are suggested here which have never been satisfactorily answered. What caused this cleavage between the two kingdoms? or did two different forms of life originate in the first place and simply travel together for a time? If the latter, what caused the separation? If the original spontaneous action which generated life brought forth two different kinds of life, why only two? why not a hundred, a thousand, a million? If there was but one kind of life in the first place which divided into two forms, why only two?

    Evolutionists are silent about this gap except to admit that it is there. They do not even try to account for it. They simply hurdle it and go their merry way, supposing and presuming and guessing and hypothesising. But a layman can't do that, for laymen are more mundane in thinking and not nearly so mentally agile as your evolutionist. He needs an unshakeable and solid foundation under his feet. So until evolution can explain the difference between the oak tree and the contented cow chewing her cud in its shadow, its foundation will be as unreliable and insubstantial as that of the house built upon sand or the church founded on soup.

    But again, let us disregard this insurmountable barricade, gird up our loins, and follow the evolutionists on their carefree adventure. And we find ourselves facing:-


    Life cannot be reproduced except by life

    "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth" ( Genesis 1:22) .
    From the standpoint of mathematics we would seem to have a very simple proposition here. We might state it thus: (I) Life was generated by some unknown combination of some of the elements; (2) These elements are known to science; (3) Therefore life can again be generated in a laboratory by combining the same elements. Just as simple as that. Yet science has never been able to solve this very simple equation although the best trained, most skilful and persistent minds have been concentrated upon it and consecrated to it for at least two and a half millennia.

    As I remember it there are approximately 100 elements. Granting that this number would make possible a tremendous number of possible combinations, it still would not remove success from the realm of the possible. We must take into consideration the fact that there have been thousands of men working on the problem and that they have been working for thousands of years. Consequently they have been able to profit by the work and the failures of their predecessors. Under such circumstances surely some chap would have brushed close enough to the solution to see some result - just one little wiggle in the inorganic mass, at least. But no! Today, after all the years of research, the secret of life is just as secure as it was at the beginning.

    Why? Well, until a better answer is given I, personally, will rest the case on the answer given by one who has been called the world's greatest biochemist - Doctor George Washington Carver of Tuskegee Institute. I had this story from one of his students. After analysing a cabbage-leaf, Doctor Carver stepped back from the laboratory table where sat his test tubes and retorts and remarked casually:

    "There, gentlemen, is the limit of human wisdom. The chemist can separate a cabbage leaf into its component parts, but only God can take those parts and make a cabbage leaf."
    But again, let us disregard this "bridge out" sign, wade through the morass and find ourselves facing:-


    The formation of species lines

    "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:21 ).
    Evolution - any sort of development in animal life - would of necessity depend on breeding. Evolution is postulated as a change in the inheritable characteristics of life forms. Unquestionably environment, climate, and food will influence individuals, but such changes are not inheritable. For example, climate might cause a rabbit to grow a heavier coat of fur; food can determine whether it will be a fat and sassy rabbit or a thin and skinny one. But such changes disappear with the individual. They cannot be transmitted to the progeny and in any case the animal will still be a rabbit. However, if it were possible to cross-breed a rabbit and a wildcat, the progeny would be an animal that was neither rabbit nor wildcat. but something that had modified characteristics of both. Every cross-breed would further those characteristics so that the individuals instead of differentiating would "amalgamate." How then could definite species lines be formed? They couldn't, of course. In the course of time, instead of having a number of clearly differentiated species, you would have one kind of animal partaking of modified characteristics of all - in other words, a mongrel. To support us in this claim we have no less an authority than Charles Darwin himself who writes:
    "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, is not all nature in confusion, instead of being, as we see them, the species well-defined?"
    Professor T. H. Morgan (California Institute of Technology) says:
    "Within the period of human history we do not find a single instance of a transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed then that the theory of descent is lacking in the most essential feature that it takes to place it on a scientific basis."
    However, let us leave this difficulty in the hands of the evolutionists while we hurry along to:-


    Why are there no transitional forms?

    All life has been divided into groups called species, both animal and vegetable life. These groups are composed of individuals having characteristics identical or at least so similar that a difference would be undetectable except by delicate scientific means. Evolutionists tell us that these species have been developed from other species having similar characteristics but not similar enough to be confused with each other. For example, we have the lemurs, the monkeys, the anthropoids, and the primates. Zoologists include these four species in the same family. Evolutionists place them in a "line of descent" (or ascent, pay your money and take your choice) , but even the most rabid evolutionist would not venture to say that they were in a direct line of descent, that is, that the lemurs fathered the monkeys, and that monkeys brought forth the anthropoids, and that the anthropoids begat the primates. In fact, if we accept evolutionists' own timetable, there must have been millions of years and probably that many distinct forms during the unbridged gaps between these four modern species. Well, we will accept the amendment all right but where are those forms? That is the question.

    We do have a basis from which to start for we will admit that we do have these four modern species and that they do have similar characteristics - similar enough that even a layman can recognise them. We may find them running wild (literally) in the jungle fastness of the dark continent. We also can recognise a vast zoological gap between them. The question is, where are the transitional forms which go "to make up the gap"? And echo answers, where? For in all of the wild and frantic and desperate efforts of the friends of evolution to locate them not one single lone survivor has ever been discovered either alive or dead.

    Evolutionists know that their ship is sunk unless they can account in some way for these missing delegates from the hall of fame. Those yawning, unbridged gulfs stand as an insurmountable barrier in the pathway of any who would travel the merry evolutionary highway. The missing link - a transitional form - is the only hope. Yet, believe it or not, the search has been absolutely fruitless. They have been led into many ridiculous and ludicrous situations; they have been imposed upon by jokesters and have been made the victims of hoax after hoax but persistently they have kept on. Certainly they deserve credit for their perseverance but we could wish that they were occupied in a better cause. Every move they have made has only proven more conclusively the fallacy of their position and the hopelessness of the quest.

    At times there have been loudly hailed discoveries. Publicity hungry reporters have cashed in on these reports. Newspapers have announced in scareheads that the missing link has been discovered at last. People have flocked to see "restorations" and artists have outdone themselves and strained their imaginations to picture them to a credulous public - but the final result has always been the same. When responsible men of science have had a chance to examine the discovery, the bubble has burst with a loud "bang." It has been found to be either a fraud, a hoax, or mistaken identity. So today the missing link is still very much missing.

    The most famous of these discoveries was "pithecanthropus erectus," the erect apeman. In 1891 Doctor Eugene Dubois found some fragmentary fossils on the banks of the Bengawan River in Java. There were five teeth, a short piece of thigh bone, and a small section of skullcap about the size of a silver dollar. All of the remains were not in the same place, either. The thigh bone was some thirty feet from the section of the skullcap and the teeth were still further removed. His report of the find created quite a stir in the scientific world and, of course, John Q. Public soon felt the reverberations.
    I was but a small boy at the time but I well remember the fervour that swept over our village. I also remember the pictures in the papers of a hairy creature, half man and half ape. Likewise I remember that my sister explained to me that this thing was my great-great-great many times removed grandpa. I didn't like the idea then and time has not softened my resentment any to speak of. As I remember it, the net result to my sister was that I chased her out of the house with a red hot poker. The result to me was that after mother had learned of the "ruckus" from my sister, I stood up to eat for a couple of days. But I have never regretted the martyrdom in a good cause.

    Doctor Dubois was very secretive with his relics. He kept them under lock and key for some six months before he would allow any of the savants even to see them. When at last he did permit a laboratory examination the bubble burst. Even as biased a reporter as the Englishman, H.G.Wells, admitted that the remains were those of an ape, or, more probably, two apes, and that they bore no human characteristics whatever.

    We might mention the "Piltdown man" as exhibit B. In 1911 Professor Charles Dawson of Lewes, England, discovered a skull and a stone axe near Piltdown, a parish in East Sussex. He was leading a group of students at the time in excavations. He reconstructed the skull and pronounced it a very early type of man. The discovery was hailed in the scientific world as of top importance and was named "eoanthropus dawsoni" in honour of its discoverer. For forty years it was on exhibition in the London Museum and was looked at and Oh'd and Ah'd over by thousands of credulous non-scientific curiosity seekers. In September, 1931, no less an authority than Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, addressing the British Association for the Advancement of Science, asserted that "Dawson's Dawn Man" represented the earliest type of primitive humanity thus far discovered and that he actually hovered over the border line of the gulf which we are considering.

    And so it was accepted until November, 1953. Then the Royal Geological Society issued a bulletin which punctured the bubble and set the whole world in an uproar. They announced that this "dawn man" was not a primitive man at all. He was a very modern type of ape. The skull had been very skilfully scraped to make it look somewhat like a human skull and had been just as skilfully treated with acids to counterfeit age. Two weeks later the same society made a secondary report announcing that the stone axe was also a humbug. It had been subjected to the same treatment and for the same purpose. It would seem that some of Doctor Dawson's students had been running true to college student form. They had been doing their homework at night at the old man's expense. Tut! Tut! Boys must be boys!

    This has been the story during the years. Old man Science no sooner gets close enough to his objective, the missing link, to begin twirling his lasso than "Presto!" There is an explosion, the candidate goes up in smoke, and the old man is left holding the bag. Being an evolutionist must be tough sledding at that!

    But wait a moment! I have been speaking of the missing link. But that is not what we are looking for at that. If there be any basis of fact in the evolutionary nightmare, it isn't the missing link we want; it's an army of missing links. Remember that these yawning gulfs are between all of the species of all the different forms of life, both animal and vegetable. There should be millions and millions and multiplied trillions of missing links, only they should not be missing. We should be stumbling over them every time we step out into the open. Charles Darwin himself saw this difficulty and writes:

    "Why, if species descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
    Brother Darwin is right; missing links are what we should have nothing else but! They should be running about our country as familiar to us as bunny rabbits. The earth should be packed with them. There should be rabbit-like animals of all different forms and descriptions, long-haired rabbits, short-haired and furry rabbits, big rabbits and little rabbits, one-legged, two-legged, three-legged and four-legged rabbits, white rabbits, black rabbits, yellow rabbits, and Welsh rabbits. Where are they? And where are the multiplied trillions of gradually changing forms between the other 2,999,999 species that clutter up the landscape? Believe it or not, not a trace of a single such form has ever been found. Surely that is your lost brigade! And until a trace of this vast and numberless army has been found or accounted for, I, at least, will have to take my evolutionary rations with large and frequent doses of salt.

    In this connection, before leaving this phase of the subject, I would like to pay my respects to these "restorationists." These are the chaps who are always ready with moulders' clay to build upon any relic, no matter how small it may be, a faithful "restoration" of the imagined chap who owned it. In almost any museum you will find these monstrosities in numbers, but they are absolutely without value except to take up room. An artist with clay could build a model of a polar bear on the skeleton of a man if he wanted to do it. I once saw the model of a Saint Bernard dog built on a saw horse.
    But suppose the restorationist is an honest and sincere scientist, you ask? That fact would make little difference. There is practically nothing about a skeleton to indicate the body lines of the animal that owned it. If an anatomist were shown the skeleton of a small animal he could probably tell whether it was that of a fox or a wild cat. He could also build, or have built, a replica of a fox or a wild cat on it because he has seen and maybe dissected one of these animals. But there would be no assurance, even in that case, that the animal built would be an accurate replica of the animal that owned the skeleton. Individuals vary greatly within a species. If that skeleton happens to be the framework of an animal extinct long enough that there are no authentic pictures of it, that anatomist would be as helpless as a trombone player in a telephone booth. He would have nothing to draw upon but his own imagination.

    Complete skeletons of either men or animals representing prehistoric types are very rare - practically unknown. Restorations, as a rule, must be concocted from a few small pieces of bones. Pithecanthropus, for example, as mentioned before, was built from five teeth, part of a thighbone, and a small piece of skullcap the size of a silver dollar. The Heidelberg man was "restored" from a jaw bone. The idea that there is any factual value in such childish tinkering is silly.
    Professor E. A. Hooton (Harvard University) has this to say about it:

    "The various reconstructions of the Piltdown man by Smith-Woodward, Keith and other experts differ widely from one another. To attempt to restore the soft parts is even a more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthal skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. The alleged restorations of ancient types of men have little if any scientific value and are apt to mislead the public."
    All of which brings us to:-


    What stopped the evolutionary process?

    "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24).
    Evolution has an answer for that one. But the trouble with evolution's answers is that they always suggest a flock of even more difficult questions than the one being answered. The fact is that evolution has two answers to this question and we may take our choice, if there be any choice.
    First, it says simply that something stopped the evolutionary clock. That is like telling a chap, after he has chased a street car for a couple of blocks, "I see you missed your car." It is true, but not satisfying. We know that the process has stopped if it ever started in the first place. We know it for the simple reason that it is not now going on. It simply isn't possible to believe that any cold, hard, inexorable, lifeless, and changeless law could bring every individual of each of the three million species of life to exactly the same degree of development and then suddenly desert them. Yet we do see fully developed species and nothing but fully developed species. And, throughout their history, as far as it is possible to examine, they have been exactly the same. Yes, the clock is stopped all right but what stopped it; that is the answer we are seeking and evolutionists can give us no assistance.
    The second answer is even less satisfying than the first if such a thing be possible to imagine. The evolutionists tell us that the interval of time covered by man's research is so brief, and the rate of evolutionary change is so slow that there hasn't been a sufficient period of time observed for a measurable change to be apparent. That answer is not only unsatisfactory, it is also just plain silly. I freely admit that man's tenure on earth has been brief. It has been briefer even than the evolutionists will admit. I also know that the period of his research has been even briefer than his existence. That conclusion is puerile. But if we accept the evolutionist's own timetable, we are not limited to man's research nor to his written records.

    For example, they tell us, the evolutionists, that Homo Sapiens (that's us, by the way, if you will pardon my Hoosier expression) have roamed this old vale of tears for some 50,000 years at least and that, except for a top hat, a tuxedo, and a college degree he was just the same 50,000 years ago that he is today. They also insist that he was descended from some anthropoid ancestor common with the gorillas, the chimpanzees, and the orang-utans. These magnificent stretches of time do not bother me. I do not know how long this old world has existed; neither does any scientist, evolutionist or not. We both start from scratch on that point. Genesis is a dateless book; the second verse of chapter one gives ample room for all of the multiplied millions of ages that any scientist wants to hide behind. That is not the point. The question is this: why is there not a shadow of an evolutionary change detectable in my 50,000-year-old grandpa? That's what I want to know.

    Physics teaches me to measure the millionth part of an inch, the millionth part of a volt of electrical energy, the millionth part of a candle power of light, and to weigh a dot made by a lead pencil on paper or a fleck of dandruff from my hair. Do you mean to insist, then, that it would be impossible for me to measure a 50,000 year change in dear old grandpa? Brother, it just does not add up. If you can't detect any change whatever in that length of time when equipped with modern methods in the physics laboratory, there "just ain't been no change!" (Superlative degree of Hoosier negation.)
    But that is only the beginning of the story. If there has been no measurable change during the past 50,000-year period, it would follow conclusively that there would be no measurable change in any 50,000-year period. Thus the inevitable conclusion is that grandpa was just the same 100,000 years ago as he is today or, in other words, as we, his children, are today. Furthermore, unless evolutionists can produce evidence to prove that their evolutionary program is actually a changing, differentiating, and controllable force, we may carry our proposition on and on from 100,000 years to 200,000 years and on to 400,000 years by geometric progression to infinity. And if they prove that evolution is really changeable and differentiating, they would destroy their hypothesis. The conclusion? You write it; I'm dizzy already.

    But we do not have to depend upon this method of discrediting this answer of evolution. We have an actual check of observation, believe it or not. Let me quote from Dr. W. Bell Dawson, F.R.S.C., one of the greatest physicists of our generation.

    "If any type of creatures would show change during descent it is those that have the most numerous generations. The one-celled organisms are in immense variety, classed broadly as bacteria; and they propagate from one to another twice or three times in an hour. So there are as many generations in one year as with sheep or cattle in 175 centuries. Among them all, the disease germs have been thoroughly studied. Yet if there were any change from one species to another in 15,000 to 20,000 generations, a typhoid germ might turn into a malaria germ from one year to the next. The whole investigation of germs would thus become futile, with no reliable basis."
    I have said that this answer is silly. I now would like to move an amendment to that judgement. I move that the word "silly" be stricken and that the word "asinine" be substituted. Any farm boy can tell you that changes caused by breeding - cross-breeding, in-breeding, or line breeding - are apparent even to a layman the very first generation. Changes caused by habitat, climate, or food are observable within a matter of three to ten years.

    Cross a horse with a donkey and you get a mule the first generation, not in 50,000 years. Bring a native from the tropical jungles of Africa to our temperate climate and watch results. You will not have to watch very long, either. The first winter he will hug the furnace and freeze. The second winter he will get along very well with a heavy overcoat. The third winter you will find him in the open, his coat off and his sleeves rolled up, working like a horse and singing a spiritual. Reverse the process. Ask any missionary who has gone to the tropics. For a year or so they suffer severely with the heat. At the end of their first term they come home and freeze to death on the fourth of July.

    The fact is that animal life adapts itself very quickly to any sort of changed conditions. Any schoolboy knows that this is true. He also could tell you with absolute assurance that, if any anthropoid, gorilla or otherwise, were ever evolved into a man, that change was completed in from five to ten generations at the most, not in 50,000 to 50,000,000 years as evolutionists would have us to believe.
    But the day grows old and we must move on to:-


    Embryos do not propagate

    It is not possible to produce apple seed from apple seed without first producing an apple tree and, second, producing an apple. Caterpillars do not produce caterpillars; they produce butterflies which produce eggs from which larva are hatched which produce caterpillars. Tadpoles do not produce tadpoles; they produce frogs which lay eggs which hatch tadpoles. But any theory of evolution would necessarily demand that such embryonic forms should be self-reproductive. Because, if life, as we have it today on the earth, is the finished product of an evolutionary process, then every form which preceded our present forms is embryonic. Yet some of these alleged embryonic forms still exist side by side with the finished product and they do reproduce themselves. How is such a premise tenable, then?

    For example, most evolutionists teach that the primates (including man) were evolved from a common anthropoid ancestor. Some of them, a majority, in fact, suggest the lemur as the candidate for this exalted honour. Some are even bold enough (or crazy enough, depending on your point of view) to suggest the lemurs, the monkeys, the anthropoids, and the primates in a direct line of descent. If either of these postulates were true, the lemurs at least would be embryonic forms. Yet it did and still does reproduce itself. The Island of Madagascar can provide us with plenty of evidence to establish this point. But if they really were embryonic and in the line of descent of which man is the finished product, then human mothers would give birth to lemur babies, or babies of some further removed progenitor form.

    Evolutionists have recognised this difficulty and have tried to explain it by the peculiar changes which take place in the human foetus. Physiologists, however, have blown their craft clear out of the water and even the most ardent and rabid of the evolutionary clan would hardly try to use this city of refuge today. There are vast and unbridged gulfs between the embryos of vertebrates and invertebrates. Sir Arthur Keith (Royal College of Surgeons of England; Former President of the Royal Anthropological Institute) has said:

    "It was expected that the embryo would recapitulate the features of its ancestors from the lowest to the highest forms in the animal kingdom. Now that the appearance of the embryo at all stages is known, the general feeling is one of disappointment; the human embryo at no stage is anthropoid in appearance. The embryo of the mammal never resembles the worm, the fish or the reptile. Embryology provides no support whatsoever for the evolutionary hypothesis."
    Which brings us to:-


    The sterility of hybrids

    "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, end every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:25 ).
    A true hybrid is a cross between individuals of distinct species. Let us remember that changes of individuals within a species can be induced by breeding but such changes do not change the species. They only develop varieties within the species. For example, the Clydesdale horse was developed in the valley of the Clyde River in Scotland by crossing the native cob stock with Flemish stock. The result was a beautiful and exceptionally strong and tractable individual but it was still a horse. Moreover, the characteristics which distinguish it from its parent stocks are not permanent as I will mention later.

    It is possible to cross individuals of distinct species where gestation is similar. Such crosses produce true hybrids and such hybrids are sterile. It is true that there have been a very few reports of hybrids that were fertile. Those that have been investigated, however, have proven to be fertile only with one of the parent stocks and then only for the first generation. The mule, the hinny, the turk-hen and the cattalo are examples of such hybrids. It is quite evident that without the fertility of such hybrids, it would be utterly impossible either to change an existing species or to develop a new one. Someone has aptly remarked that the Missouri mule stands stubbornly blocking the evolutionary trail.
    Doctor McNair Wilson (Editor, Oxford Medical Publications) says:

    "Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasise the extreme rigidity of type and, more and more, to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another - the essential basis of Darwinism. The classic aphorism, 'when a mule breeds,' ought to serve as a warning against the easy acceptance of a theory which is as full of ogres, mermaids and centaurs as any fairy tale."
    In this connection I would also call your attention to the fact that there are no natural hybrids. Individuals of different species simply do not cross naturally. Wild horses and wild asses ran side by side on our great western plains for many years yet there were no wild mules. Men have forced crosses between some of the large cats, the lion and tiger, for example, yet these beasts roam the same jungles and never mate. Perhaps it might be too much to make a blanket statement on this point. It is possible that there might be such a cross at very rare times, but if so, such crosses are so rare that they are discredited by zoologists. Certainly they could not invalidate the general rule that species do not cross naturally.

    Professor Leo S.Berg (Bureau of Applied Ichthyology, Leningrad) tells us:

    "Hybridisation, with the most insignificant exceptions, is successful only when crossings are confined within the limits of one species. It thus leaves the limits of the Linnean species intact. Lastly, in animals hybridisation rarely ever occurs; it is rare in mammals, birds and reptiles."
    And that statement brings us naturally to:-


    The question of reversion to type

    As I have mentioned, it is possible to improve varieties within a species or to develop new ones by carefully controlled breeding. Thoroughbred stock has been so developed. However, in such a program individuals must be selected very carefully and the progeny must be culled just as carefully to maintain any changes that may be developed. In no case is there or can there be any change in the basic characteristics of the species itself. Such varieties, however, do not remain constant and the characteristics developed are not permanent. Left to their own devices such varieties have a tendency to assume their original markings within a very few generations.

    For example, the Clydesdale horse, which I mentioned as having been developed by crossing the cob and Flemish stocks, would not continue to produce Clydesdale colts without breeding control. If you were to pen a dozen Clydesdale horses with perfect markings, male and female, and leave them to follow their natural breeding course, the progeny would soon return to the original cob and Flemish types; only the individuals would have merged characteristics. This is what is known as "reversion to type" and is a well-recognised biological fact.

    Yet this fact is diametrically opposed to the evolutionary hypothesis. If it were true, those Clydesdale horses would not only maintain their acquired characteristics, they would actually go on and improve them. In fact if evolution were true you could turn a dozen cobs and a dozen Flemish horses loose in a field and in three to ten generations you would have a herd of valuable and purely marked Clydesdale horses. But you wouldn't, as any stock man can tell you - or his ten year old son, for that matter. You would have a herd of mongrels; for the mongrel, not the thoroughbred, is the product of promiscuity.

    But suppose we call an authority to testify on this matter, no less an authority than Charles Darwin himself. When it comes to arguing both sides of a case our friend, Charley, has a Hoosier politician backed off the boards. Actually he has done more to knock evolution down than he has to set it upon its feet; only evolutionists never quote him for the defence. He says during his later life:

    "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"
    That's a good question, Charley, let's hear you speak to it. And while the good professor gets his thesis ready, we will hurry along to:-


    The unexplained, but admitted, failure of evolution at unexpected and unpredictable times

    "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit AFTER HIS KIND, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so" (Genesis 1:11 ).
    For example, there is no sign of a change in plant life, evolutionary, or otherwise. The coal beds provide a definite check on this. Coal is carbonated vegetation, formed when it was submerged and subjected to tremendous pressure and, consequently, tremendous heat as well. Coal beds are practically world-wide, but not always in commercial quantities. Carbonisation, however, does not always destroy the forms of the vegetation from which it is made. Sometimes whole tree trunks are intact. I have seen many specimens taken from the bituminous mines of Southern Indiana. I have broken lumps of coal in my own basement and found leaves perfectly outlined on the face of the coal. And these leaves are such as might have been pulled from a tree growing on my lawn. When I was teaching at Jasonville, Indiana, the whole trunk of a willow tree was taken from the Queen Hill No. 2 mine. For years it stood by the tipple of that mine for the curious to gaze upon, an excellent exhibit, showing that evolution does not work in the vegetable kingdom, although the company did not place it there for that purpose, of course.

    I mentioned before the unbridged gulf that exists between the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Now, accepting the evolutionary hypothesis, there must have been a time in the dim and distant past aeons when no such gulf existed. For if life was generated from inorganic matter, all life must have been so generated originally. Furthermore, this life must have generated or evolved for ages before this gulf formed. Why then did the power that had successfully brought it thus far along the evolutionary trail suddenly desert one division and cling tenaciously to the other? This is all the more remarkable when we consider this fact: species crosses do occur naturally in the vegetable kingdom. What Hoosier has not eaten melons that tasted like pumpkins and potatoes with the tang of onions. If such crosses are natural in the vegetable world but do not change the species because of the law of the reversion to type, how can we believe that such crosses have overstepped species lines and even changed species, themselves, when such crosses are not natural and only occur under forced conditions with progeny resulting which are always sterile? It does not add up, does it?

    But wait! Believe it or not, I have erred somewhat! I said that the evolutionary process continued to cling tenaciously to the animal kingdom after the cleavage of the two kingdoms. I was wrong, very much wrong. In fact, I scarcely could have been wronger. There are many, many species of life in the animal kingdom which, admittedly, have not changed in any particular since the earliest period. Lingula, for example, a brachiopod found in the primordial has been unaffected in any way. Darwin admits (what a friend that boy is! ) in his Origin of Species that this is true. If there were but one species remaining unchanged, we might by a stretch of a generous imagination accept it as the exception proving the rule. But the fact is that there are hundreds of such examples, a fact that is admitted by the most rabid of evolutionists. How then can we accept their claim that all the other forms of life have evolved when there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove the claim?
    Professor H.H.Newman (University of Chicago) concludes thus:

    "Reluctant as he may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution."
    Professor D. H. Scott (F. R. S., Edinburgh University) says:
    "For the moment at all events the Darwin period is past; we can no longer enjoy the comfortable assurance which once satisfied many of us, that the main problem had been solved. All again is in the melting pot. By now, in fact, a new generation has grown up that knows not Darwin."
    But we must leave this muss for the evolutionists to sweep up while we hurry on to examine:-


    Conflict of the theories of evolution with available records

    "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4).
    Evolutionists claim that life has been developed from simple and primitive forms to our complex and modern forms. They would trace the history of man, for example, from some prehistoric delegate like Pithecanthropus (Doctor Eugene DuBois' fiasco mentioned before) through various ascending gradations to our modern "homo-sap." They speak of the lake dwellers, the cave man and other primitive forms of culture through savagery, semi-savagery, barbarism, semi-barbarism, semi-civilization and then on to the supreme summit of civilisation. Personally, I am not certain in my own mind whether this sort of path would lead upward or downward but that is not the question here. The question is: was that the path that man has travelled? Evolutionists say, "Yes!" History and research say, "No!"

    The earliest trace of organised human life thus far discovered is that discovered by Sir Leonard Woolley when he excavated the ruins of the ancient city of Ur of the Chaldees. There he discovered the tomb of Queen Shubad. He also discovered the "flood silt" which he himself identified as a flood silt that must have been deposited by a flood of the extent "of such a flood as that described in Genesis." This queen's tomb was begun above the silt, but it cut deeply into it so she must have reigned at the time or immediately following it. And, this queen represented a civilised culture, not savagery nor barbarism. Much of what was found in her grave is in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Examine them and you will be astonished at what they reveal as to the state of society before the flood.

    Undoubtedly there had been both savagery and barbarism before and at the time of Queen Shubad. That is not the point. She represented a highly-developed and civilised culture but her progeny could not maintain it, let alone improve upon it. Archaeology has proven conclusively that man has had a fluctuating experience. He has travelled more nearly a circuitous route than an uphill climb. In Mesopotamia he has gone from civilisation almost to the depths of savagery and back again some four or five times. Sort of a merry-go-round it would seem.

    Egyptian excavations tell exactly the same story as do the Cro-Magnon discoveries in Southern France. The conclusion is unavoidable: the earliest traces of man as far as records go is of a simple but nonetheless civilised culture. The idea that man has developed from a bestial state of savagery is based upon theory alone, and upon theory that is diametrically opposed to every fact thus far discovered.

    The history of languages agrees completely with the story of the excavations and tears the foundations from under the theorists. When I was a student in high school, several centuries ago, under the influence of the evolutionary theory I was taught that languages had evolved side by side with man on "his uphill climb." We were told that the earliest language was simply the guttural grunts of some half-human ancestor. In the course of many ages these grunts developed into an isolating or syllabic language. After more millennia this isolating language grew into an agglutinative language which in turn developed into an inflected language. It was a beautiful theory and, while I am about the confession business, I might as well admit that I swallowed the whole thing and taught it myself in the classroom. But this theory, beautiful though it was, has been blown into a cocked hat in recent years by old man Archaeology, the fussy old codger with a spade. Queen Shubad spoke a highly inflected language, not an isolating tongue as the theory would demand.

    Philologists now admit that the inflected language is actually older than either the isolating or agglutinative and was probably the primitive tongue for which they have long searched. We have all three of these types of languages today in pretty good balance. The language spoken by the greatest number of people is Chinese, an isolating tongue. The language having the greatest world spread is English, an agglutinative tongue. And the language spoken by the most national groups is Spanish, a beautiful inflected tongue. Something really stopped the evolutionary clock here.

    When we look at the history of science and religion the story again is the same. I group these two because evolutionists group them, insisting that they had their roots in the fear of primitive men and were developed through magic, voodooism and sacrifice. They claim that religion began with primitive man's fear of the unseen. This gradually led him to animism, then to the worship of inanimate objects such as sticks and stones and trees, then on to the worship of serpents and higher animals, graven images, etc., until he finally created for himself a host of gods. Gradually his number of gods grew smaller until he finally arrived at monotheism. They claim that science had much the same development, calling attention to the fact that the earliest scientists were the priests of man's religion.
    The records, however, do not support these claims. The earliest religion of man, if we may trust the records that man himself has left us, was not animism nor polytheism nor even idolatry. Queen Shubad worshipped three gods. Today, archaeologists are pretty well agreed that the earliest religion was monotheism. Dr. Stephen M.Langdon, Professor of Assyriology at Oxford, sums up the matter as follows :

    "Monotheism in the Old Testament, and Islamic monotheism, were not the result of a direct evolution from polytheism. It was a false conception of the history of religion to suppose that polytheism was necessarily connected with low types of culture. In fact, polytheism was characteristic of the greatest cultures of antiquity, but it grew out of monotheism, and was only a theological interpretation of primitive monotheism."

    "The history of the Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful religious and cultural influence of the ancient world, could be traced by means of pictographic inscriptions back almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence pointed unmistakably to an original monotheism. The inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest of the Semitic peoples all indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited."

    The history of medicine, perhaps the earliest of the sciences, tells exactly the same story. There have been undoubtedly, through the centuries medicine men, magic, and midwives. There have also been licentiates, leeches, and barber-surgeons. In fact, you may still find any of them in various sections of the world. But, do they represent a line of evolutionary development as the proponents of the theory insist? Not if we may trust the records.

    The oldest record bearing on this subject is now in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. It is an ancient Sumerian clay tablet, unearthed more than fifty years ago but only recently deciphered. Doctor Samuel Noah Kramer of the Museum, an internationally known cuneiformist, and Doctor Martin Levey, of the Department of Chemistry of the Pennsylvania State College, made the transcription. Doctor Kramer calls this tablet, "the oldest medical handbook known to science."
    The tablet proved to be a record of the prescriptions of an anonymous Sumerian physician for his salves, filtrates, and internal remedies. His favourite minerals were sodium chloride (salt) and potassium nitrate (saltpetre). Most of his medicines were made from plants such as cassia, myrtle, asafoetida, alkali and thyme, and from trees such as willow, pear, fig, and date. The botanical ingredients were prepared from the seed, root, branch, bark, or gum and were stored in solid or powdered form much as they are today. The remarkable thing about this record is, in Dr. Kramer's words:

    "Not one god or demon is mentioned anywhere throughout the text. It is a startling and unexpected fact that this early document, the oldest page in the medical history (3,100 B.C. ) as yet uncovered, is completely free of the mystical and irrational elements which dominate Babylonian medicine of later days."
    It does look like someone had "snuck"up on the evolutionary train and reversed the engine while the engineer was out oiling up for that long uphill climb that never came off, doesn't it? But so much for this barricade. Let us hasten on to:-


    The co-existence of types

    It is now a well known and generally accepted fact that some types, formerly supposed to have descended the one from the other, have actually lived side by side during their lifetime. For example, our modern horse was believed - at least the defenders of the evolutionary hypothesis claimed to believe it - to have descended from a primordial three-toed animal about the size of a fox. This was taught in our schools as a fact by many instructors. Palaeontologists call this early fossil "eohippus" or dawn horse. The tinkerers have made extravagant "restorations" of him and of the imagined links between him and our modern horse. A so-called restoration of this line of descent was cast in plaster and exhibited at the Century of Progress for the credulous to enthuse over. Then one day the remains of our modern horse, "hippus," were discovered in the same drift with "eohippus," and the bubble burst with a fizzling sound. It is an unavoidable conclusion that modern hippus could not have been descended from eohippus if they ran side by side and grazed together at any period of time.
    This same thing has been true of a great many different species including man. Man and apes and monkeys have inhabited this old world side by side from the earliest trace of any of them. It is ridiculous to assert that either has been descended from the other. Professor Pfaff (University of Erlangen) says:
    "The most ancient man known to us is not essentially different from the man now living."
    Professor William J. Tinkle (LaVerne College) tells us:
    "Cro-Magnon man averaged six feet in height and had a cranial capacity 150 c.c. above that of modern man. Living at the same time were Neanderthal men with a cranial capacity equal to that of modern man."
    How could one be descended from the other, pray tell a benighted Hoosier! Actually, as it stands today, the evidence, as far as man is concerned, would lead us to believe that, if he has changed at all, rather than evolving from a lower type to a higher, he has "devolved" from a higher type to a lower. Professor Rendle Short says in this connection:
    "The most unexpected part of the palaeontological evidence, however, remains to be mentioned; the further back we look for early man, the more like ourselves he appears to be."
    An interesting and amusing incident happened recently. M. Maurice Tillet, a quiet and unassuming Frenchman, came to this country to practice his profession as a wrestler. He was nicknamed "The Angel" because, as Look magazine described him, "At the age of 35 he has the misfortune to look like one of Primo Carnaro's nightmares. "Continuing, the magazine says:
    "In the ringside seats at the Angel's first bout in Boston last month were Professor Carleton Coon and other members of the Anthropological Department of Harvard. They were even more excited than the gallery. They had never seen a man quite like the Angel, and they did not think that anyone else had, either. After the bout they formally invited the Angel and his stable mates to Harvard to be measured scientifically.
    "The result of these measurements disclosed what the scientists had already anticipated: they had found a Neanderthal man! M. Tillet's measurements were identical to those of the prehistoric man, only M. Tillet was not prehistoric. He was a very much alive and active candidate, as any of his opponents on the mat would have been willing to testify."
    Later it was discovered that this man's peculiar form had been caused by a strange and somewhat rare disease of childhood. It is called acromegaly. It is caused by the overfunctioning of the pituitary gland. Few children are strong enough to overcome it and, consequently, there are few men and women with "Neanderthal" characteristics. The Neanderthal man was not a different kind of man; he was - or had been - a sick child and he had lived to manhood. And this brings us to:-


    The constant number of species

    "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16,17) .
    The number of species on the earth has remained constant since the Tertiary Period. Evolutionists admit that this is true. This is difficult to understand. No, it is impossible to understand if we accept the evolutionary hypothesis as our port of departure. It simply cannot be reconciled with the evolutionary hypothesis. That hypothesis states that all life has been evolved from a single form to form all of the various orders, families, subfamilies, genera, species and varieties, as we have them today. If that statement were true, the number of species would of necessity be a constantly and regularly increasing one. Any schoolboy can figure that problem. Yet the evolutionists declare that life has developed from a single form to some three millions of different forms and then with the next breath they admit that the number has remained constant. Both of these positions just cannot be true, so, as it is simple to show that the number of species has remained constant, we will have to reject the premise of evolutionary change. Which brings us to:-


    The question of method

    Evolutionists have been very generous on this point. They have suggested a number of different methods by which evolution might have functioned. Darwin favoured natural selection and the survival of the fit. Lamarck preferred the use and disuse of faculties. Erasmus Darwin favoured adaptation as did Yung and Buffon in a modified form. The trouble with all of these suggestions, however, is that none of them will stand before the simple test of ordinary observation, a test that any child can apply.

    For example, the earth was once populated by a huge reptilian order. Both the Bible and biology tell us this, as well as the evolutionists who accept neither of the former, so we can scarcely run into any difficulties hereby stating this as a fact. You can visit any museum and see the skeletal remains of these creatures. Some of them reached enormous size and must have been unimaginably strong. The largest of them have been called "dinosaurea" which means terrible lizard. Terrible they must have been, too. "Gigantosaurus," unearthed in 1912 in East Africa by a German expedition, measured well over a hundred feet in length. Some of these, built on the lines of the kangaroo, were capable of hurling their huge bodies through the air like huge jackrabbits.

    What chance would our modern fauna have with such creatures as these in a contest based on the principle of the survival of the fit? Yet the fact remains that our modern fauna, with the exception of a few species that were lost in the shuffle and became extinct, actually chased this horde of giant reptiles to cover and apparently destroyed them. At least they became extinct before the invasion of modern mammalia. And note this, please, the species that were lost in the conflict from among our modern fauna were not the rabbits and dogs and foxes; they were such species as the sabre-toothed tigers, the mammoths and the mastodons, the largest and strongest of them all. Also the reptilia which survived are not the dinosaurea but the smaller and weaker species, very few of which are even venomous. Certainly this does not represent what we would conceive of as the survival of the fit.
    We find the same objection when we look at our modern life. For example, how does the cottontail survive in the same terrain with wolves and foxes and mountain-lions? Yet survive he does to such an extent that in many areas a bounty is offered on him to keep him from destroying the crops. Yet in all of these areas there are carnivora much larger and stronger, many of which are just as cunning and quick of movement as he. We find this example repeated over and over again in the life that surrounds us. There is a delicate balance that could not possibly be the result of blind force, nor of chance. Only "Intelligence" can account for life as we see it, and Intelligence that is vastly superior to anything to which man has attained.

    Or suppose we take a glance at Lamarck's pet idea, the law of use and disuse. The theory is that individuals have developed or lost the use of faculties by the use that they have made of them. The faculties used were developed and passed on to the progeny, while the faculties not used were lost, and eventually even the organ was lost or at least became rudimentary. In this way, eventually an entirely new species was formed. An example frequently given is that of the monkeys. Arboreal monkeys have long, strong prehensile tails as a rule while ground monkeys have short stubby tails or no tails at all. To a layman this fact would simply mean that the monkeys that were created with long, strong prehensile tails found it very easy to climb and, consequently, did so while the monkeys which were created with short tails or no tails at all found it safer to remain on the ground. But an evolutionist never sees a simple solution to anything. So he evolves an evolutionary tale to account for those monkey tails. It is a beautiful theory until one considers the gibbon and the barbary ape. These chaps are absolutely tail-less, yet they are never so happy as when they are climbing sheer walls to inaccessible facades.

    Then there are the cats and the bears. The cats are skilful climbers and they have beautiful tails which they do not use at all for the purpose of climbing. How did they develop those tails, pray tell? The bears, with the exception of a very few of the heavier ones, are also skilful climbers and they have no tails or at most very short and rudimentary tails. How did they manage to lose the tails which they must have had to learn to climb if brother Lamarck is correct? Some way I just can't make it add up so we will pass along to:-


    The preservation of species lines

    I have mentioned before "reversion to type" and the "sterility of hybrids" by which species maintain their distinctive lines. There is another fact that we ought to consider in this connection also. It is this: modifications of characteristics in an individual are not transmitted naturally and do not tend to change the species.

    Occasionally individuals are born within a species which show abnormal, subnormal, or even distinctive characteristics. Actually such individuals are so rare as to sink into insignificance when compared to the species as a whole. They are called "sports." For example, there are individuals of the human species born occasionally with six fingers or six toes, sometimes with both. There are also giants, dwarfs and albinos. Such sports have been found in most species. Evolutionists call them "throw backs" and claim that they are the reappearance of characteristics which have been lost in the age-long evolutionary climb.

    This argument loses force, however, when we consider the fact that such sports do not transmit these extraordinary characteristics to their progeny. They usually disappear the first generation. Medical science, also, has discovered that many of these sports are actually the result of glandular deficiency or abnormality and are not the result of heritage at all. The "Angel" whom I mentioned is an example. His peculiar characteristics were caused by an over functioning gland. His children are perfectly normal.
    And this brings us to:-


    The mathematical difficulty

    "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" ( Genesis 9:1 ).
    I remind you that the evolutionist admits there has been no detectable change, evolutionary or otherwise, within the life span of our modern fauna and flora. I would also remind you of the fecundity of the ordinary house fly and of the southern pine tree. Such fecundity is not confined to these two species. It is the rule, rather than the exception, with life in general. The question, then, is this: if we accept the evolutionary hypothesis and the conclusions which it inevitably involves, of a tremendous span of years and ages and aeons, why aren't we absolutely smothered with life both animal and vegetable?
    (See Appendix A.)
    It is very easy to determine the rate of increase of the human species which is one of the least prolific. From recent archaeological discoveries we now know the date of the birth of the patriarch, Abraham. This date is attested by historical record, archaeological record and astronomical observation, it should be acceptable for our purpose. He was born in 2160 b.c. He was 100 years old when his son, Isaac, was born, and Isaac was sixty years old when Jacob was born. Jacob married Rachel and Leah when he was in his eighties. From this we could say the beginning of the Jewish people would be approximately 2,000 b.c. According to the World Almanac there are from sixteen to eighteen million Jews in the world today if we include New York City. Thus we find that the descendants of Jacob have doubled themselves 23 1/2 times in the 4,000 years since the marriage of Jacob to his two wives.

    We have a significant check on this conclusion. Sir Leonard Woolley places the date of the flood silt which he discovered at Ur at 3500 b.c. If we begin with a family of eight, which was the number of persons in the ark, and use the same ratio of increase for 5,500 years, the time since the flood, using Woolley's date at a basis, we would find that there should be 2,600,000,000 children of our father, Noah, in the world today. The World Almanac estimates the population of the globe as two and a half billion which is close enough for our purpose.

    Now push the date back to the very irreducible minimum allowed by evolutionists for the life span of the human race on earth, say 50,000 years. This is very conservative because, as a matter of fact, most of them demand five-hundred or six-hundred thousands of years to give themselves sufficient elbow room. However we want to be fair about this, so we will say but the fifty thousand years as our beginning point. We will use the same ratio of increase as we know is true in the case of the sons of Jacob, and as we have every right to believe is true in the case of the children of Noah. We will allow the same ratio for loss by death and disease, devastations of war and college matriculation, and we will find that the human family would have doubled itself some 294 times. How many people do you suppose would be on earth today? Maybe you would like to cipher that one. I would do it for you only I am not feeling any too pert today. However, a New Jersey mathematician has ciphered it for us and he reached quite an astounding result. He found that today the whole surface of the earth - including water area - would be packed and jammed and crammed like sardines in a can with human beings to a depth of thirteen miles. Humanity would be merrily evoluting up yonder in the rarified atmosphere of the stratosphere at a temperature of something less than a hundred degrees below zero. Because of the lessened pull of gravity, we would be clinging to one another for dear life. Doctors would be catching the babies in nets and tying them to the bed-posts to keep them from flying off at a tangent, and by the rules of the evolutionary game they would resemble something like a cross between a polar bear and a walrus.

    But hold everything! I have overlooked a point. The human race did not begin with a trio as the Jewish race did. If we accept this evolutionary hypothesis, it must have begun with a very large number of pairs or trios. Not even an evolutionist would venture the suggestion that but one pair of mammals was evolved to the erect posture as a starter for the evolutionary race up the grade to the human estate. Neither would he make a guess as to the number with which the race started, so we are on safe ground if we do make a guess. Why be just silly when it is possible to be absolutely insane? Just to get a springboard from which to dive into this maelstrom, let us imagine that on a beautiful spring morning some 50,000 years ago there were 10,000 mammals toed the line as starters in this mad scramble. Surely that is a conservative estimate. Now suppose we use the same ratio of increase as before, with these 10,000 individuals as a basis for our equation. Maybe you begin to see the enormity of this proposition. Well, catch a full breath and hold on to your hat for here we go! I will give you a conservative answer by way of illustration, not in figures, for paper is expensive and time is fleeting. Today our whole solar system should be packed and jammed and crammed with humanity clear out beyond the orbit of the little planet, Pluto!

    But wait! I am not done. I have been talking about but one species of life, humanity, which is one of the least prolific. Remember that there are some three millions of species of animal life, alone, identified and established and catalogued. Remember also that most of them are much more prolific than man. If it would crowd the universe to care for humanity, where would we place the rabbits, the guinea-pigs and rodents of various kinds? And what about vegetation? Where would we put it? Surely the Lord will need all of the worlds that He has made if He allows this evolutionary process to go on. THIS IS MORE THAN A BARRICADE: IT IS A COMPLETE ROAD BLOCK'
    But I cannot leave the subject without a mention, at least, of:-


    The desperate attempts of evolutionists to crush all opposition to their doctrine

    "For God's anger from heaven is being uncovered against all the impiety and wickedness of the men who in their wickedness are SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH" (Romans 1:18, - Williams Translation).
    We will grant the right of every man to perfect freedom of speech so long as his speech is not offensive to decency and good morals. If a man believes that the moon is made of green cheese, there should be nothing to prevent him standing on the housetops and declaring his convictions to the populace. But when that man tries to throttle and gag another man who does not believe that the moon is made out of green cheese, when he refuses to give honest answers to serious questions, substitutes ridicule for reason, evasion for investigation and fear for frankness - when he takes these measures to meet objections, it is a pretty safe bet that that chap does not really believe that green cheese theory himself.

    If you want to make yourself unpopular in any sphere of worldly society just announce that you do not believe in evolution. Try it sometime even at a ministerial association. You will get the raised eyebrow treatment immediately. You will see the sly, smirking smile exchanged between your hearers and you will be politely snubbed and avoided as if you were a leper, no matter what your qualifications, otherwise, may be. You can deny anything else in the book, but never evolution. That is sacred.

    The favourite answer to any objection is: "No scientist would deny the fact of evolution." Yet the actual fact is that no scientist would affirm evolution as a fact. Many of our most able scientists are absolutely opposed to the hypothesis but they are hushed and crushed and silenced by the same methods used by Stalin and Hitler. Doctor Thomas Dwight (Harvard University) said this:
    "The tyranny in the matter of evolution is overwhelming to a degree of which the outsider has no idea. Not only does it influence our manner of thinking (as I confess it does with me), but there is opposition as in the days of 'terror'! How very few of the leaders in the field of science dare to tell the truth as to the state of their own minds! How many of them feel themselves forced in public to do lip service to a cult that they do not believe in!"

    Professor Paul Shorey (Chicago University) has this to say about it:

    "There is no cause so immune from criticism, today, as evolution. An ambitious young professor may safely assail Christianity, or the Constitution of the United States, or George Washington, or female chastity, or marriage, or private property, or defence of his native land - but he must not apologise for Bryan. It just is not done."
    It is a little known fact that Darwin himself repudiated most of his original conclusions before he died. Few people know that Thomas Henry Huxley, although perhaps the greatest defender of evolutionists, particularly of Darwin, never himself accepted his conclusions. Sir Edward Poulton, F.R.S., Oxford, says concerning Huxley's position:
    "Although no one strove so nobly, and against such odds in its defence from unfair attack, although no one ever fought the battle of science with more complete success, Huxley was at no time a convinced believer in the theory which he protected."
    This "reign of terror" has reached the stage of an inquisition. There are schools where graduate students would be refused who admitted that they did not believe in evolution. There are many schools where a professor would not dare openly deny the hypothesis. The spirit has overflowed the educational dikes, has inundated society in general, and is even tearing away segments of the theological dam. It has, or at least is becoming a tidal wave of religious fanaticism. Sir William Dawson (Geologist, McGill) declares:
    "It is easy to affirm that the lowest animals and the lowest plants are but protoplasm, and that if we conceive this to originate from the inorganic union of its own elements, we shall have a low form of life from which we can deduce all the higher forms of vital action. To believe either of these doctrines in the present state of science is simply an act of faith, not that kind which is based upon testimony or evidence, however slight, but of that unreasoning kind which we usually stigmatise as mere credulity and superstition."
    Arthur N. Fields (Australian Geologist) asks and answers this interesting question in this way:
    "What is evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen - belief in fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith 'unjustified by works.' "
    But to return to our question: why this frantic, mad, and insane attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with the evolutionary hypothesis? There is an answer to this question given by a recognised authority:
    "He that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (John 3:20).

    The evolutionist is like a fish that has leaped for what appears to be a delicious morsel of food, only to find itself trapped and being drawn helplessly to the surface of the water - and suffocation. It immediately starts a frenzied and desperate struggle against the inevitable, and actually suffocates itself in its natural element. Evolutionists are definitely behind the eight ball and that isn't a pleasant situation we will admit. Their discoveries have backfired. Their experiments have failed. Their reasoning, based upon proven fallacies, has fallen, leaving them holding the bag. They desperately seek to keep themselves from exposure. But honesty needs no apology. The truth fears neither darkness nor light.

    Before completing this booklet, I want to pay my respects to the many honest scientists who have spoken on this subject, both pro and con. I have quoted several; I could just as easily quote from hundreds more. Not all of these men reject the hypothesis of evolution but not one of them would make a dogmatic statement of acceptance. Broadly speaking, responsible scientists, like ancient Gaul, may be "divided into three parts." There are those who say that the hypothesis of evolution is the probable explanation of life as we have it today. There are those that say it is a possible explanation of life. And there are those who reject it as unacceptable as an explanation of life. There are no dogmatists among them.

    This is where the real harm lies. Our boys and girls are not being led astray by real scientists but by the pettifoggers and demagogues; the ambitious high school teacher with an inferiority complex who wants to attract attention; the energetic reporter who wants to fill his column, and the aspiring scientific tinkerer who envisages a place among the elite. These are they who are working the damage to our young folk, and I can speak with some knowledge on this point because for a number of years I was one of them.

    But I believe that I have said enough to show you that evolution has no answer to the riddle of life. I realise that my own exploration of the field has been limited. Again I remind you that I am not a scientist. I am a layman as far as science is concerned. I do not seek argument; I want an answer. Until science can provide me with one that will satisfy me as well as the one which I have found, not only without its help but actually against its efforts to confuse me - until then I shall stand my ground. There are enough uncertainties in life without making life itself an uncertainty. Thus I stand upon the answer that accounts for everything and explains everything, "In the beginning God created . . ."


    Theories about the Age of the Earth and of Man

    The evolutionist would place the beginning of man in the distant past, some putting his age at 500,000 years. The earth is much more hoary with age according to most geologists who consider it to be from 5 million to several billion years old. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., author of "The Bible and Modern Science," says that the methods most used in the past to determine this age have been "the rate of cooling of the earth, the deposits of sediment at the mouths of rivers as compared with the sedimentary deposits of the earth's surface, rates of erosion of the earth's surface, the amount of salt and other chemicals in the ocean, and radio activity. Scientists now readily admit that all of these, except possibly the last, are not at all to be trusted and are of practically no value in calculating the earth's age." He points out that these were abandoned largely because they proved unsatisfactory to the theory of evolution.

    The evolutionary geologists tried to justify the estimate of 100 million years from the salt and chemical method of determining the earth's age, but they had to stretch the evidence beyond reason to arrive at that figure. Their theories demanded much more time for the evolutionary process to be worked out.

    Mr. Morris goes on to say, "The only method that has been satisfactory to the evolutionists is the radioactivity method. It is known that metals of high atomic weight, such as thorium and uranium, are constantly being broken down into radium and eventually into an isotope of lead. The rate of this decomposition is believed to be constant. Consequently, when rocks are found containing uranium, thorium, or radium, and lead, the relative amounts of the two metals in the rocks are taken as an index of their age. However, there is no dependable way to estimate how much uranium or thorium may have been leached out of the sample.
    "In fact, it is quite contrary to the whole tenor of historical geology to say that a deposit of radioactive metal could have remained unaffected by all the effects of telluric movements, igneous activity, ground water flow, chemical action, etc., for hundreds of millions of years or more, to be discovered near the surface in these present days. But if the deposit was affected by any agency during those unimaginably long periods of time, then it is manifestly untrustworthy as a means of measurement. The exact original amounts of metal must be known, and so must the exact amount of material produced by a radioactive disintegration during all that time in order for the age estimate to have any meaning whatever. . . .
    "Furthermore, it should also be obvious that it can never be demonstrated for sure that the rate of disintegration has never changed during all those tremendous periods of time. . . .
    "As a matter of fact, it is known now that some disintegrations can be greatly hastened, and this is the basis of the atomic bomb, Furthermore, there now exists considerable evidence that the natural rate of disintegration may be affected by cosmic radiation, and possibly still other influences which are not reproducible in laboratories.

    "In view of all these and many more difficulties with the radioactivity method that might be enumerated, it is not surprising that results obtained by the method are so erratic. It is quite common to obtain widely divergent results from different samples in the same locality. Out of all the hundreds of age determinations that have been made by this method, there are still less than a dozen from all parts of the world that are considered to be fairly dependable and to fit satisfactorily into the accepted geological time. Most of them have been rejected for one reason or another, quite often simply on the basis that the radioactivity age determination contradicts the geologic time classification already worked out on the basis of the contained fossils."
    Mr. Morris draws the following conclusion from his observations:
    "All things considered, this method of estimating geologic time, no less than its predecessors, has been vastly overrated, and has had built upon it a superstructure of geologic, astronomic, and philosophic interpretation which preponderantly overburdens it.
    "Thus, there is no really scientific proof yet offered that the earth is very old. . . .,'

    (Quotations from "The Bible and Modern Science" by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., used by permission of Moody Press.)

    Barricade number:          10 11  12  13 14  15  16 17
    Top of page

    The above edition of 'Why I Accept the Genesis Record' was published in 1968 by
    The foreword, reproduced below, was written by John I. Paton, then Literature Editor for Back To The Bible Broadcast.

    The Genesis record of creation is of inestimable importance. It sets forth God as the Creator of the material universe and the Author of life. Needless to say, if this record is not true, the Bible cannot be trusted when it deals with sin and salvation, God's work in redemption. But, thank God it is true! Our Saviour believed in the historical facts of the Genesis record of creation (Matt.19:3-6) . Paul based major doctrines on the fact of man's creation and fall (Rom.5:12-19). Indeed, that record enters into the entire warp and woof of Scripture.

    The evolutionary hypothesis is diametrically opposed to what Genesis teaches on creation. It knows no God but chance. It has spawned such political systems as Communism, Nazism, and Fascism. In the realm of psychology it gave us Freudianism which is largely responsible for the unwholesome sex emphasis that has swept across our land.

    Though we would not say that all so-called liberal theologians are evolutionists, they are bedfellows with them when it comes to rejecting the Genesis record.

    Our young people especially need help in meeting this evil philosophy (it is not a science) of evolution. John Raymond Hand, popularly known as the "Hoosier Schoolmaster" has given such help in this book. His experience in teaching physics to high school students has enabled him to present his arguments in easy to grasp, non-technical language. Dr. Hand is at present a pastor in Illinois. We trust God will use this work to help thousands of young people to come to a settled faith in the Word of God.

    John I. Paton, Literature Editor, Back to the Bible Broadcast.