Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved – 50 Arguments (part two)

1. The Pithecanthropus, which is a high sounding name for an ape-man (from Grk. pithekos, ape, and anthropos, man) was found by Dr. Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, in 1892, in Trinil in the island of Java. It lived, it is said, 750,000 years ago. He found, buried in the Pleistocene beds, 40 feet below the surface in the sand, the upper portion of a skull, a tooth and a thigh bone. „It was fortunate,” says Dr. Chapin, „that the most distinctive portions of the human (sic) frame should have been preserved, because from these specimens, we are able to reconstruct (?) the being, and to say with assurance (!) that his walk was erect in manlike posture, that he had mental power considerably above the ape, (it will not do to be too definite) and his powers of speech were somewhat limited. (A string of guesses wholly unwarranted.) This man stood half way between the anthropoid and the existing men.”–Social Evolution, p. 61.
A high authority declares–„Shortly after this discovery, 24 of the most eminent scientists of Europe met. Ten said that the bones belonged to an ape; 7, to a man; and 7 (less than one-third) said they were a missing link.” Some of the most eminent scientists say that some of the bones belong to a man, and some to an ape, baboon, or monkey. The great Prof. Virchow says: „There is no evidence at all that these bones were parts of the same creature.” But such adverse opinions do not weigh much with modern evolutionists determined to win at all hazards.
The small section of the brain pan, weighing but a few ounces, was found about 50 feet from the thigh bone. One tooth was found 3 feet from the fragment of skull, and one near the thigh bone, 50 feet away. Since the small section of the brain pan belonged to a chimpanzee, and the thigh bone is that of a man, is it likely that these scattered bones belonged to the same creature? Even if they did, is it 1likely that these bones would be preserved in the sand 750,000 years, or even 375,000 years according to a later estimate? We know that petrified skeletons, encased in rock, may be millions of years old, but where are the unpetrified skeletons of men who lived even 5,000 years ago? If unpetrified skeletons could last 750,000 years, there would be millions of them. Without a doubt, this skull of a chimpanzee, and femur of a man, belong to a modern beast and a modern man, buried by floods or earthquakes, or some other convulsion of nature, or by slow accumulations. It is said that the Jerusalem of Jesus’s day is buried 20 feet under the surface, by the quiet accretions of the dust of 1900 years. Rome also has been covered up in recent centuries. It would be easy for 40 feet of sand to accumulate over the bones of a modern man or chimpanzee in a valley, in a few centuries, if 20 feet of dust accumulated on the mountain city of Jerusalem in 1900 years.
Elsewhere we have shown that an ape-man with a cranium of two-thirds normal capacity must have lived at least 20,000,000 years ago–one third the period of animal existence; or even 166,666,666 years ago, if we accept a later claim that life has existed 500,000,000 years. It is absolutely impossible that a normal creature of the alleged mental capacity could have lived 750,000 years ago, much less 375,000, according to a later estimate cutting in two the first one. But the quickest way to disprove these wild guesses is to check them up by a mathematical test. If these bones are normal, such an ape-man could not have lived at the time assigned. If they are not normal, they prove nothing whatever for evolution. They can be duplicated now.
We are asked to believe that these scattered bones–some the bones of a modern brute, some the bones of a modern man–were preserved in the sand 750,000 years and belonged to an ancestor of the human race, while of the millions of his generation and of the generations following for many thousands of years, we have not a trace. We are asked upon such a flimsy pretext to accept a theory, unsupported by a single compelling argument, and irreconcilable with numerous facts–a theory which takes away man’s hope of immortality, destroys faith in God and his inspired word, and in the Christian religion itself. There is a limit. How much more truthful and majestic is Gen. 1:27: „And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.”
One distinguished evolutionist has said, „We might as well be made out of monkey as out of mud. It is mud or monkey.” Most of us would retort, „I would rather be created a human being out of the filthiest mud by Almighty God than owe my existence to the brainiest monkey that ever lived.” Please note, „The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,” not mud. The evolutionists are as wild in their exegesis as in their guesses.
2. The Heidelberg Jaw. The second relic, in the order of time, relied upon by the evolutionists to prove the brute origin of man, is a human jaw of great antiquity, discovered in the sands of the Mauer River, near Heidelberg.” Hence, it is called the Mauer jaw, or the Heidelberg Jaw, or Heidelberg man, or the high sounding Latin name of Homo Heidelbergensis. It needs all the names that can be given to it, to elevate it to the dignity of an ancestor. „This jaw was found in undisturbed stratified sand, (sand again) at the depth of about 69 feet from the summit of the deposit.” Dr. Schoetensack, the discoverer, says, „Had the teeth been absent, it would have been impossible to diagnose it as human.”
They say it is 700,000 years old, preserved in sand. A later estimate says 375,000 years. (Any wild guess will do.) It resembles the jaw of an ape, and the tooth of a man. Was it not likely the abnormal jaw of a modern man, in historic time swept into the sands by the freshets and floods of a few centuries? It is only fair to say that many scientists of the evolutionary school, do not believe the Heidelberg man an ancestor of our race. „These remains,” says one, „show no trace of being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape.” Some claim it a connecting link. Others deny it. Some say the find is of the utmost value; others say it is worthless. All are guesses, wild guesses at that. They hopefully reach out their hands in the night, and gather nothing but handfuls of darkness.
Since a modern Eskimo skull has been shown by a distinguished scientist to have the same appearance and peculiarities as the Heidelberg jaw, it is easy to believe that this jaw can be duplicated in many graveyards. Greater abnormalities, in great numbers, can be found in the skeletons of modern man. Without doubt, this jaw belongs to modern man, and has no evidential value at all in favor of evolution.
We count these relics normal, in our arguments, because evolutionists do. If they are not normal, they are the remains of modern man and brutes and their whole argument falls to the ground.
3. Piltdown Man (See Appendix). The next fragments of bones, in chronological order, upon which evolutionists rely to prove their impossible theory, has been called the Piltdown man. It has been more truthfully called the Piltdown fake. Dr. Chapin gravely tells us (Social Evolution, p. 67): „During the years 1912, a series of fragments of a human skull and a jaw bone were found associated with eolithic implements and the bones of extinct mammals in Pleistocene deposits on a plateau, 80 feet above the river bed, at Piltdown, Fletching, Sussex, Eng. …The remains were of great importance. The discoverers regard this relic as a specimen of a distinct genus of the human species and it has been called Eoanthropus Dawsoni. This extinct man lived in Europe hundreds of thousands of years ago.” We have passed over 200,000 to 300,000 years since the Heidelberg man, that have not yielded a scrap of bone, though according to the theory, countless millions of ape-men must have lived in various stages of development, in that great stretch of time. Why were not some of them preserved? Simply because there were no ape-men. There are countless relics of apes, but none of ape-men. Even Wells says: „At a great open-air camp at Solutre, where they seem to have had annual gatherings for many centuries, it is estimated there are the bones of 100,000 horses.” Would we not expect as many bones of ape-men? While Wells says the bones of 100,000 horses were found in a single locality, Dr. Ales Hrdlicka says that the bones of 200,000 prehistoric horses were found in another place. Why should we not find, for the same reason, the bones of millions of ape-men and ape-women in 750,000 years? Instead of mullions we have the alleged fragments of 4, all of which are of a very doubtful character.
The bones of this precious Piltdown find consisted, at first, of a piece of the jaw bone, another small piece of bone from the skull, and a canine tooth, which the zealous evolutionists located in the lower right jaw, when it belonged in the upper left; later, two molar teeth and two nasal hones–scarcely a double hand full in all. An ape man was „reconstructed” made to look like an ape-man, according to the fancy of the artist. The artist can create an ape-man, even if God could not create a real man! But scientists said the teeth did not belong to the same skull and the jaw could not be associated with the same skull. Ales Hrdlicka says, „The jaw and the tooth belong to a fossil chimpanzee.” Conscientious scientists said that the pieces of the jaw and skull could not belong to the same individual. They constructed a scarecrow from the bones of an ape and of a man, and offer this, without the batting of an eye, as a scientific proof of the antiquity of man. The great anthropologist of world-wide reputation, Prof. Virchow, said: „In vain have Darwin’s adherents sought for connecting links which should connect man with the monkey. Not a single one has been found. This so-called pro-anthropus, which is supposed to represent this connecting link, has not appeared. No true scientist claims to have seen him.” Sir Ray Lancaster, writing to H. G. Wells, concerning the Piltdown find, says, „We are stumped and baffled.” Yet in spite of all this, nearly 1,000,000 persons annually pass through the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and view the „reconstruction” according to the artist’s fancy, of the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, the „ancestors of the human race,” and the multitude of high school students and teachers, as well as the general public, are not told how dubious and unscientific the representation is.
The brain capacity of the Piltdown individual (man or ape) is set down by his discoverers at 1070 c.c., which is 282/3% short of the normal skull capacity, 1500 c.c Therefore, he must have lived 17,200,000 years ago, if we accept the estimate of 60,000,000 years since life began; or 143,333,333 years ago, if we accept the later guess of 500,000,000 years. It could not have lived near the time assigned. In short, no guess of the origin of man that differs materially from the time assigned in the word of God, can be harmonized with the facts.
4. The Neanderthal Man. The next slender prop is the Neanderthal man, claimed to be 40,000 to 50,000 years old, although we are told that that is very uncertain.
Dr. Chapin says, „The first important discovery of the existence of an early example of mankind differing markedly from any living (?) and of a decidedly lower type, was made in 1857, when a part of a skull was found in a cave near Dusseldorf, Germany. The bones consisted of the upper portion of a cranium, remarkable for its flat retreating curve, the upper arm and thigh bones, a collar bone, and rib fragments.” From these fragments, an apeman has been created (by the artist), about 5 ft. 3 in. high, strong, fierce in look, and having other characteristics created by the artist.
Dr. Osborn assigns to the Neanderthal skull a capacity of 1408 c.c., which would indicate that he lived 3,680,000 years ago, if life began 60,000,000 years ago; or 30,666,666 years ago, if life began 500,000,000 years ago.
From the first, many naturalists claimed that these bones belonged to an abnormal specimen of humanity. They can be easily duplicated. Naturalists have maintained many divergent opinions: an idiot, an early German, a Cossack, a European of various other nationalities, a Mongolian, a primitive ape-man, an ancestor of modern man, and an impossible ancestor of man. Not very reliable evidence to support the stupendous scheme of evolution.
Now these four finds are the weak props supporting the desperate claim of the brute origin of man. Dr. Chapin says (Social Evolution, p. 68): „Other skulls and bone parts of prehistoric man have been found, and preserved in museums but the specimens described (the four above mentioned) are sufficient to illustrate the type of evidence they constitute.” The later finds measuring dose to normal capacity, doubtless are the bones of the descendants of Adam. Even by the admission of this text-book author, the evidence from other remains is no more convincing than that from these four types.
Some evolutionists say that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, form an unbroken line of descent from the ape, each in turn becoming less like the ape, and more like man. Others claim that the pithecanthropus was the end of a special branch of the apes; the Heidelberg man the last of another extinct branch; the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man, likewise the last of other extinct species. In this case, all four finds have no evidential value whatever. All these confusing guesses from evidence so scant and uncertain, stamp evolution a „science falsely so called.” If these branches, species, or races of ape-like creatures ended, as claimed, in the age to which these alleged remains belonged, they could not have been the ancestors of the human race, and these alleged links were not links at all. Some evolutionists say that the Neanderthal race became extinct 25,000 years ago. If so, they were not our ancestors. We are curious to know what caused the extinction of all these races. Prof. R. S. Lull confesses, „However we account for it, the fact remains that ancient men are rare.” Most unbiased students would say such men never existed. The entire absence of human remains during the during the 750,000 years and more is a demonstration against the brute origin of man, and a proof of special creation .
It will be remembered that there is no complete skeleton among all the remains, nor enough parts to make one altogether, nor to make any large part of a skeleton– not even an entire skull. What bones are found are not joined together, and some of them scattered so widely apart, that no one can be certain they belong to the same individual. Some of the bones belong to an ape, and some to man–doubtless modern man. Ardent evolutionists, with a zeal worthy of a better cause, have taken a fractional bone of a man, and a bone of an ape, and fashioned a composite being, and called it an ape-man, and their ancestor.
Every one of these finds is disputed by scientists, and even by evolutionists. And all these doubtful relics would not fill a small market basket. Yet some are ready to say that evolution is no longer a guess or a theory, but a proven fact. Text books like Chapin’s Social Evolution are placed in the hands of pupils giving only the arguments in favor, and the student, even if disposed to question this flimsy and unsupported theory, is helpless in the hands of an adroit professor. Dr. Gruenberg’s high school text book teaches that man is descended from the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg, the Piltdown and the Neanderthal man, without the slightest intimation that such descent is at all disputed or questioned. What right has anyone to teach this false and unproved theory as the truth?

The claim that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, were the ancestors of man, collapses under the admissions of evolutionists themselves. The eminent Wassman says: „There are numerous fossils of apes, the remains of which are buried in the various strata from the lower Eocene to the close of the alluvial epoch, but not one connecting link has been found between their hypothetical ancestral forms and man at the present time. The whole hypothetical pedigree of man is not supported by a single fossil genus or a single fossil species” (an italics ours). Darwin says: „When we descend to details, we can prove that not one species has changed.” How, then, can man be descended from the brute?
Even H. G. Wells, who seems ready to endorse the most extravagant views, says (Outline of History, p. 69), „We can not say that it (the pithecanthropus) is a direct human ancestor.” On p. 116, is a „Diagram of the Relationship of Human Races,” showing that neither the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, nor the Neanderthal man, could have been an ancestor of the human race, because each were the last of two species, and therefore had no descendants.
Dr. Keith, a London evolutionist, says that the Piltdown man is not an ancestor of man, much less an intermediate between the Heidelberg man and the Neanderthal man. Sir Ray Lancaster confesses he is „baffled and stumped” as to the Piltdown man. Dr. Keith says the „Neanderthal man was not quite of our species.”
Dr. Osborn says that the Heidelberg man „shows no trace of being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape.” Again, speaking of the teeth of the St. Brelade man, Dr. Osborn says, „This special feature alone would exclude the Neanderthals from the ancestry of the higher races.”
Prof. R. S. Lull says, „Certain authorities have tried to prove that the pithecanthropus is nothing but a large gibbon, but the weight of authority considers it pre-human, though not in the line of direct development in humanity.”
Prof. Cope, a distinguished anatomist, says, „The femur [of the pithecanthropus] is that of a man, it is in no sense a connecting link.”
In his „Men of the Old Stone Age,” Dr. Osborn puts the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, on limbs which terminate abruptly as extinct races. They can, in no sense, then, be the ancestors of man, or connecting links. Why, then, do they cling so desperately to these alleged proofs, when they admit they have no evidential value? Only sheer desperation, just as a drowning man will clutch a straw.
Dr. W. E. Orchard says: „The remains bearing on this issue, which have been found are very few, and their significance is hotly disputed by scientists themselves–both their age, and whether they are human or animal, or mere abnormalities.”
Since these four creatures (of the evolutionists) can not be the ancestors of the human race, where are their descendants? Evolutionists are obliged to say they were the last of their kind. Strange! But there is no other way of escape.
Prof. Bronco, of the Geological and Palaeontological Institute of Berlin University, says, „Man appeared suddenly in the Quaternary period. Paleontology tells us nothing on the subject–it knows nothing of the ancestors of man.”
As fossils must be embedded in rock, there is not a single fossil of an ape-man in the world.

To bolster up the hypothesis, that some of the scraps of bones belonged to ape-men, who lived about 50,000 years ago, we are told that, in many caverns there are paintings of animals, some of which are extinct, proving that the artists were ape-men of advancing intellect, living in that day. These drawings are rude and inexact, and the resemblance to extinct animals rather fanciful. If the writer were to try to draw a picture of a horse on the stone walls of a dark cavern, with no light, it would be just as likely to resemble an extinct anima1, or possibly an animal that never did live and never will. Many of the paintings are found in the depths of unlit caverns, often difficult of access. How could they paint any picture in the dark, when even fire was unknown, and the torch and lamp-wick had not yet been invented? And how could they make a ladder, or erect scaffolding of any sort in that rude age, before there were inventions of any kind? Yet they tell us that the frescoes on the ceiling of the dark cavern of Altamira, Spain, were made 25,000 to 50,000 years ago, when fire was unknown, and they ask us to believe that several colors are used, brown, red, black, yellow, and white; and that these drawings and colors have remained undisturbed and unchanged through these long ages. Is it easier to believe this, than to believe that these drawings were made by modern man, using modern inventions? A theory left to such support, must be poverty-stricken in argument indeed.

The claim is made that the so-called rudimentary organs in the human body such as the appendix, are the remnants of more complete organs inherited from our animal ancestors. It is a strange argument that a once complete and useful organ in our alleged animal ancestors, when it becomes atrophied in man, causes such an improvement and advance, as to cause man to survive when his ancestors with more perfect organs became extinct. Man with less perfect organs became the dominant species. If the perfect organ were better than the rudimentary organ, how can man be the „survival of the fittest”? If rudimentary organs are a proof of descent from animals with more extensive, if not more perfect organs, then both man and monkeys must be descended from the rat, which has the longest proportionate appendix of all. If unused muscles speak of our ancestry the horse has the strongest claim to be our ancestor.
But many organs, such as „the thyroid gland, the thymus gland, and the pineal gland,” formerly classified as rudimentary organs, are found to be very useful and necessary.
Physicians have found the appendix very useful in preventing constipation, which its removal usually increases. If we only knew enough, we would, no doubt discover a beneficial use for all the so-called vestigial organs. Answer: Our ignorance is no argument against the wisdom of their creation. The claim that human hair is vestigial is spoiled by the fact that there is none on the back where most abundant on simians.
They tell us that the blood of a dog injected into the veins of a horse, will kill the horse, whereas the blood of a man injected into the veins of an ape results in very feeble reaction, which proves that the dog and the horse, they say, are not related by blood, while the man and the ape are so related. But a distinguished authority says, „The blood of the dog is poisonous to other animals, whilst, on the other hand, the blood and the blood serum of the sheep, goat and horse, have generally little effect on other animals and on man. It is for this reason that these animals and particularly the horse, are used in preparation of the serums employed in medicines.
It is also stated as a fact that mare’s milk more nearly resembles human milk than that of any other animal save the ass, a nearly related species–to the mare, let us hope, not to us. Because of this resemblance, it is reported by Dr. Hutchinson that, „One of the large dairy companies in England now keeps a stock of milk asses for the purpose of supplying asses’ milk for delicate human babes.”
These well-known facts would prove the horse and the ass a nearer relative than the ape, since serums are not made from the blood of the ape. We prefer the innocent sheep to the ape as our near relative, and will allow the evolutionists to claim the goat.
Dr. W. W. Keen, Prof. Emeritus of Jefferson College, Philadelphia, in his book, „I believe in God and in Evolution,” on p. 48 says, „Here again you perceive such identity of function, that the thyroid gland of animals, when given as a remedy to man, performs precisely the same function as the human thyroid. Moreover, it is not the thyroid gland from the anthropoid apes that is used as a remedy but that from the more lowly sheep.
Again the force of Dr. Keen’s argument goes to prove, so far as it has any weight, that we have a nearer kinship to the sheep than the ape. Children are nourished by the milk of the cow, the ass and the goat, not of the ape. Vaccine matter is taken from the cow and serums from the horse, not from any species of monkey, to which we do not seem to be related at all.
The conclusions of the blood tests are unreliable and uncertain. W. B. Scott, an expert evolutionist, says, „It must not be supposed that there is any exact mathematical ratio between the degrees of relationship indicated by the blood tests, and those which are shown by anatomical and paleontological evidence. . . It could hardly be maintained that an ostrich and a parrot are more nearly allied than a wolf and a hyena, and yet that would be the inference from the blood tests.”
Prof. Rossle, in 1905, according to McCann, presented evidence to show that the blood reaction does not in any manner indicate how closely any two animals are related; and that evidence based on resemblance of blood is not trustworthy in support of a common relationship. In many cases, transfusions of the human blood into apes have positive reactions. We do not make pets of the ape, baboon or chimpanzee, but of the dog whose traits are far more nearly human. If any brute ancestor is possible, have not the evolutionists guessed the wrong animal?

Embryology, or the Recapitulation Theory, is the last, and perhaps the least important of the claims advanced in favor of evolution. It is claimed that the whole history of evolution is briefly repeated in the early stages of embryonic life. W. B. Scott, in the „Theory of Evolution,” says, „Thirty years ago, the recapitulation theory was well nigh universally accepted. Nowadays it is very seriously questioned, and by some high authorities is altogether denied.”
It is hard to see why the history of the species should be repeated by the embryo. It is difficult to crowd the history of ages into a few days or weeks. It must be enormously abbreviated. It is a physical impossibility. Changes caused by many environments must take place in the same environment, contradicting the theory of evolution. So many exceptions must be made that there can be no universal law. Such general similarity as we find in etubryonic life, may be accounted for, on the ground that the Creator used one general plan with unlimited variation, never repeating himself so as to make two faces or two leaves or two grains of sand exactly alike.
„Embryology is an ancient manuscript with many of the sheets lost, others displaced, and with spurious passages interpolated by a later hand.” It is hard to construct a syllogism, showing the force of the argument from Embryology`. Try it.
Various other evolution arguments are answered in PART ONE, and completely refuted by UP-TO-DATE SCIENTIFIC FACTS. No one has yet noted an error, nor answered an argument. If all students, teachers, ministers, etc., had this book (pp. 116-7), evolutionists could no longer conceal the „unanswerable arguments,” nor answer them by ridicule or abuse.

The Soul
Evolution fails to account for the origin of the body of man. Still more emphatically, does it fail to account for the origin of the soul, or spiritual part of man. This is part of the stupendous task of evolution. Its advocates give it little or no attention. We are not surprised. If they could show the evolution of the human body probable or even possible, they can never account for the origin of the soul, save by creation of Almighty God. We can not release evolutionists upon the plea that they cannot account for the faculties and spiritual endowments of man. This is a confession of complete failure. Though invisible to the eye or the microscope, they are positive realities. They can not be dismissed with a wave of the hand or a gesture of contempt. We have a right to demand an explanation for every phenomenon connected with the body or soul of man. The task may be heavy, and even impossible, yet every hypothesis must bear every test or confess failure. They have undertaken to propose a scheme that will account for the origin of man, as he is, soul and body, and if they fail, the hypothesis fails.
How do we account for the existence of each individual soul? It can not be the product of the arrangement of the material of the brain, as the materialists do vainly teach. It can not be the product of evolution, nor a growth from the father or mother. The soul is not transmitted to be modified or changed. It is indivisible. The soul of the child is not a part of the soul of either parent. The parents suffer no mental loss from the new soul. It must be created before it can grow. God creates each soul without doubt, and so God created the souls of Adam and Eve. If creation is possible now, it was possible at the beginning of the race. If God creates the soul now, analogy teaches strongly the creation of the souls of Adam and Eve. If evolution be true, there was no creation in the past, and is none now. This is contradicted by the facts every day and every hour.

An evolutionist writes: „We do not undertake to account for personality.” We reply, „That is a part of your problem. You have undertaken to solve the riddle of the universe by excluding all evidence of an existing and active God, and we can not release you because a feature of the problem may be unusually difficult or embarrassing, or even fatal to your theory. It is a fight to the death in the interest of truth; and we purpose to use every weapon of science against a theory so unscientific, so improbable, so far reaching, and so baneful in its effects. It takes faith, hope and comfort from the heart of the Christian, destroys belief in God, and sends multitudes to the lost world.”
Personality is consciousness of individuality. When did personality begin? When did any members of the species become conscious of personality? When did they begin to realize and to say in thought, „I am a living being.” What animals are conscious of personality? Any of our cousins of the monkey tribe? Is the horse conscious of personality, or the ox, the cat or the dog? If so, does the skunk have personality, the mouse, the flea, the worm, the tadpole, the microscopic animal? If so, do our other cousins have personality–the trees, the vines, the flowers, the thorn and the brier, the cactus and the thistle, and the microscopic disease germs? If so when did personality begin? With the first primordial germ? If so, were there two personalities when the germ split in two, and became two, animal and plant? You can not split a man up into two parts with a personality to each part. Personality is indivisible. It is a consciousness of that indivisibility. If personality began anywhere along the line, where, when, and how did it originate? Was it spontaneous, or by chance, or was it God-given? Beyond all question, it was the gift of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator, and in no sense the product of evolution. God made man a living soul.
But if no plant or animal ever had personality, when did man first become conscious of his individuality? There is no evidence, of course, but the evolutionist must produce it, or admit failure. The evolutionist is short on evidence but long on guesses that miss the mark.
If all animals and plants came from one germ, why do animals have the senses, sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing, while plants are utterly devoid of them? They had a nearly equal chance in the race. Why the great difference?

The activity and energy of the soul are shown in the intellect, the emotions and the will. What evidence of these do we find in the animal world? Do we find intellect in the lobster, emotions in a worm, or will in an oyster? Whence came these elements of spiritual strength? If developed by evolution, where, when, and how?
Have the most advanced species of animals an intellect? Do they have the emotions of love, hate, envy, pity, remorse or sympathy? Has a worm envy, a flea hate, a cat pity a hog remorse, or a horse sympathy? If these existed in so-called pre-historic man, when, where, and how did they begin? No one can answer, because there is not a trace of proof that they ever existed.
Will natural selection explain the development of the mental faculties? Was art developed because those who lacked it perished? Do we account for the musical faculty, because those who could not sing perished? Some still live who ought to be dead! Do we account for humor because they perished who could not crack a joke? Will all eventually perish but the Irish, who will survive by their wit? Is anything mentioned in science quite so ridiculous as natural selection?
Not an animal has a trace of wit, or humor, or pathos. Not an animal has ever laughed, or spoken, or sung. The silence of the ages disproves evolution.

When did reason begin? Do we find it in any species of plant or animal life, save man? The highest order of animals can not reason enough to start a fire or replenish one. A dog., or a cat, or even a monkey, will enjoy the warmth from a fire but will not replenish it, although they may have seen it done many times. Animals may be taught many interesting tricks; many can imitate well. But they do not have the power of reflection or abstract ,reason. The’ live for the present. They have no plans for tomorrow–no purpose in life. They can not come to new conclusions. They can not add or subtract, multiply or divide. They can not even count. Some animals can solve very intricate problems by instinct, but instinct is the intelligence of God, and never could have come by evolution.
If reason came not from God, but from evolution, should we not expect it well developed in evolutionary man, since for the last 3,000,000 years he must have been 95 to 100 per cent. normal. If we grant the estimate of 500,000,000 years, he would have been 99.4% normal for the last 3,000,000 years. Would we not expect in that time a world of inventions and discoveries, even surpassing those of the last 100 years? The Chinese claim a multitude of inventions and a race so nearly normal as ape-men, ought to have invented language, writing, printing, the telegraph, phonograph, the wireless, the radio, television, and even greater wonders than in our age.
There is no trace of intelligence in man in all the 3,000,000 years, prior to Adam.
We should have many works excelling Homer’s Iliad Vergil’s Aeneid, and Milton’s Paradise Lost. We have no trace of a road, or a bridge, or a monument, like the pyramids. That no race of intelligent creatures ever lived prior to Adam is proven by lack of affirmative evidence. If it be true, as Romanes declared, that the power of abstract reason in all the species was only equal to that of a child 15 months old, then each species would possess less than one millionth of that.

If the origin of the mental faculties can not be accounted for by evolution, much less can the moral faculty, the religious nature and spirituality be accounted for.
.The most confirmed evolutionist will not claim that the tree or the vine or the rose, or perhaps any animal, has a conscience. If, however, conscience is a growth or development, why should it not exist in some measure in both the animal and the vegetable kingdoms? Has any brute any idea of right or wrong? Has a hog any idea of right or wrong, of justice or injustice? What animal has ever shown regret for a wrong, or approval of right in others? If conscience is a development within the reach of every species, many of the million or more, no doubt, would have shown some conscience long ago.
But if man developed conscience, why have not our near relatives of the monkey family developed a conscience? They had the same chance as man. Why should man have a conscience, and monkeys none?
Why is there no trace of conscience in the animal or vegetable kingdom? Because it is the gift of God.
What sign of regret, repentance, or remorse, do we find in the cat or the dog, the rat or the hog? If a bull gores a sheep to death, does he express regret? Is a horse sorry if he crushes to death a child or a chicken under his hoof? Can any animal be sorry for stealing food from another? Will it take any steps to undo the wrong?
Man, according to evolution, is a creature of environment. He is a victim of brute impulse. He has no conscience, no free will, he can commit no crime. Killing is not murder. It is not sin. Man can not be responsible. Without conscience, a victim of circumstances, rushed on into crime, sin, and injustice, responsible to no God!
The heart sickens at the brightest picture evolution can paint. The difficulty of showing the evolution of the body is insuperable, but the evolution of the soul, with all its mental, moral and spiritual equipment, is an absolute impossibility. Small wonder that evolutionists are unwilling to discuss the origin of the soul.

Does any plant or animal worship God? How much theology does a cow know? What does the horse think about God? What animal lives with an anxious desire to please God? How many are desirous of obeying God? How many species trust Him? How many love Him? How many pray to Him? How many praise Him for his goodness? Evidently no animal knows anything about God, or ever thinks of worshiping Him.
Man alone worships God. When did he begin? The idea of God seems to be in the hearts of all except the dupes of evolution, and the Bolshevists of Russia. The great problem to explain is how the worship of God began, and why man alone now worships Him
Personality, reason, intellect, emotions; will, conscience, spirituality, and all the faculties and equipment of the soul, are naturally and easily explained upon the basis of creation, but evolution can not account for them at all.
About 2,000,000 years ago, we are told, man and the monkey family were children of the same parents. These children headed species with an even start. Yet man alone developed personality, consciousness, intelligence, and all the equipment of the soul; all the others remained stationary This is incredible. It is inconsistent with mathematical probability. Is it likely that one species and one alone out of a million, with similar environments would reach these high mental and spiritual attainments? No! God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him,” Gen. 1:27. This declaration explains all the difficulties which are insuperable to the evolutionist.
„In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. This likeness was not a physical likeness as a learned (?) university professor asserted, but a likeness in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. No animal is made in the image of God. There is not the trace of a soul in all animal creation. How could the soul of man develop from nothing?
God is still creating new creatures in Jesus, in righteousness and true holiness, which can not come by evolution, for sinful creatures can only grow in sinfulness, until the creative power of God makes them new creatures, as the following study in Eugenics will show: Elizabeth Tuttle, the grandmother of Jonathan Edwards the eminent scholar and divine, was, according to H. E Walter, a „woman of great beauty, of tall and commanding appearance, striking carriage, of strong, extreme intellectual vigor, and mental grasp akin to rapacity, but with an extraordinary deficiency in moral sense. She was divorced from her husband on the ground of adultery and other IMMORALITIES. The evil trait was in the blood, for one of her sisters murdered her own son, and a brother murdered his own sister, As Richard Edwards, his grandfather, had 5 sons and 1 daughter, by a second wife, but none of their numerous progeny rose above mediocrity, and their descendants gained no abiding reputation, Jonathan Edwards must have owed his remarkable mental qualities largely to his grandmother rather than his grandfather. He was evidently a new creation in Jesus and was cured by grace of all inherited immoralities, so that he became the ancestor of one of the most remarkable families in the history of the world, as follows:
„Jonathan Edwards was born in 1703. He was strong in character, mentally vigorous and fearlessly loyal to duty. In 1900, of the descendants of Jonathan Edwards, 1394 had been located and the following information in regard to them had been gathered: College presidents, 13; college professors, 65; doctors, 60; clergymen, missionaries, etc., 100; officers in the army and navy, 75; eminent authors and writers, 60; lawyers, over 100; judges,30; holders of public offices, one being vice-president of the United States, 80; United States senators, 3; managers of railroads, banks, insurance companies, etc., 15; college graduates, 295; several were governors and holders of important state offices.
The claim is also made that „almost if not every department of social progress and of public weal has felt the impulse of this healthy and long-lived family.”
„The ‘Jukes’ family was founded by a shiftless fisherman born in New York in 1720. Since that time the family has numbered 1200 persons. The following facts are quoted from the records: Convicted criminals, 130; habitual thieves, 60; murderers, 7; wrecked by diseases of wickedness, 440; immoral women, fully one-half; professional paupers, 310; trades learned by twenty, ten of these learned the trade in prison.
How much of this expense to the state was due to bad blood we can not say. If the original Jukeses had become Christians we have no doubt that the majority of their descendants would have been humble, but orderly, and possibly useful citizens.”
Aaron Burr, a grandson of Jonathan Edwards, lacked but one electoral vote to become president of the U. S. His intellectual standing in Princeton was not equaled by another for 100 years.
Jonathan Edwards was a new creation, as is every other regenerated person.
According to evolution, there can be no new creation. According to the word of God, and the experience of an innumerable host, God is continually creating souls anew, who become „new creatures”. Evolution is not in harmony with the Bible nor the experience of the children of God.
Whenever it can be shown that men become more spiritual when they accept the theory, and become more devoted to saving souls as their zeal for the theory increases, the theory will be worthy of more serious consideration. We await the evidence.
Evolution can not account for the spirituality of man but tends to destroy it where it exists.

The belief in the immortality of the soul has been well nigh universal, in all ages, and among all nations, and is taught by all religions. Without it, life and death are insolvable mysteries. A doctrine so universal, so well established by reason, ought not to be set aside without the most convincing reasons and the most compelling evidence. Either this universal belief is due to revelation, or the abundance of proof appealing to reason, or both.
A child is born, suffers agonies for weeks and months, and dies. If no future, who can solve the mystery? John Milton writes his immortal „Paradise Lost,” and dies. Must his great soul perish? Nero murdered his brother his sister, his wife and his mother, and multitudes of Christians and lastly himself, and was guilty of a multitude of other shocking crimes; while many of the best men and women this world ever knew suffered persecution and martyrdom for doing good and blessing others Will they all alike meet the same fate–annihilation–at the hands of a just God?
The immortality of the soul is supported by science. Science teaches the indestructibility of matter. Not all the power that man can bring to bear, can destroy the minutes” portion of matter, not a molecule, not an atom not an electron. The smallest particle of dust visible to the eye contains, we are told, about 8,000,000,000 atoms and each atom, as complex as a piano–1740 parts. Not one of these atoms or parts could be annihilated by all the power of a thousand Niagaras.
In all the multiplied chemical changes everywhere in the world, not a single particle, the most worthless, is lost or destroyed. Dissolve a silver dollar in aquafortis, and then precipitate it to the bottom, and not a particle need be lost. If God takes such scrupulous care of the most worthless particle of matter, will he suffer the immortal soul to perish? If he preserves the dust, how much more so the highest of all his creations, the mind that can write an epic, compose an oratorio, or liberate a race. Evolution crushes out of the heart the hope of immortality, and makes man but an improved brute, while Jesus „hash brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”
If evolution be true, when did man become immortal? At what period did he cease to be a brute, and become an immortal soul? Was it before the days of the pithecanthropus, the Piltdown fraud, the Heidelberg man, or the Neanderthal man?
The change was ever so slow and gradual; could the parents, anywhere along the line, be mere brutes and the children immortal human beings? Would it not be impossible to draw the line? Is it not evident that the ape-man could never grow into immortality, or into the image of an infinitely great and glorious God?
If evolutionists could give us any convincing evidence that the body of man developed from the brute, they can not prove that the soul grew from nothing to the high mental, moral and spiritual attainments, into the very image of God, and by its own efforts become as immortal as God himself.
After all, did any theory as ridiculously untrue as evolution ever masquerade as science, or ask to be accepted by thoughtful men? Has it as much to support it as the false sciences of alchemy and astrology?
The brute origin of man, infidelity, agnosticism, modernism, atheism and Bolshevism, are in harmony, and cooperate in robbing man of heaven and the hope of immortality.
If man believes that he dies as the brute dies, he will soon live as the brute lives, and all that is precious to the heart of man will be forever destroyed. We recoil from such a fate, but live in the serene assurance that such a thing can never be.

42. SIN
Sin is a great fact. It can not be denied. It can not be explained by evolution. It is universal. Every race, all nations, with all grades of intellect and culture, civilized or uncivilized, are cursed with sin. All the wrongs, all crimes in the world, all immoralities, are due to sin. Sin causes tremendous destruction of life, property, and character Why is it universal? When did it originate? Did it originate m all the members of the brute-human race at one time? Did some become sinners, and others remain without sin? Sin must be developed, since brutes have no sin. Why not some of the ape-humans without sin. Can natural selection explain the universal sinfulness of man, on the ground that those who did not have this improvement” perished? They all died and only sinners were left, hence all survivors are sinners! Sin makes men more fit, and hence sinners only survive! Is evolution simply ridiculous, or a crime?
When in the „ascent of man” did he become a sinner? A million years ago? Judging from the pictures of fierce alleged ape-men, it must have been a long, long time ago. Did all become sinners then? What became of the progeny of those who had not secured the attainment of sin? Why have not other members of the monkey family become sinners? Why do we not hang them for murder? Will they yet attain unto sinfulness? H. G. Wells, the alleged historian, says, p. 954, Outline of History, If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden and no Fall. And, if there had been DO Fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity the story of the first sin, and the reason for an atonement upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapses like a house of cards.”
Evolution claims that man fell up and not down. It denies almost every truth of religion and the Bible, as well as of experience. „Man is falling upward, he is his own Savior, he is ever progressing, and has no need of a Savior. Contrast this with the sublime statements of the word of God concerning the creation and the fall 0 man.
Evolution is charged with explaining all phenomena pertaining to man–soul and body. It exhausts itself in time to show that the body of man may possibly be developed from the brute. It fails miserably. The problem of accounting for the soul of man with all its equipment is so much more difficult, that little or no effort is made to account for it, virtually confessing that the much exploited theory of evolution can not possibly be true, when applied to the soul as well as the body.

Evolution does not account for sin. Much less does it have any cure for sin. If sin marks progress or advancement, of course, its cure would be retrogression. But how can sin be cured? What answer has evolution? Culture, education, refinement, favorable environment. These are all desirable, but no cure for sin. Some of the most cultured, educated and refined, were the greatest monsters that ever lived. Wholesale murderers like Nero, Alexander and Napoleon, had a good degree of education and culture. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, who murdered Robert Franks in Chicago, were among the most brilliant graduates of universities. Friends say they were led on to atheism and crime by the reading of modernist books. No doubt, the doctrine of evolution, taught so zealously in the universities, played a large part.
Human efforts and human devices have utterly failed to cure sin. The human will is too feeble to resist its power.
The Bible, which evolution undermines, teaches us there is a cure for sin. The divine Son of God saves us from our sins, cleanses and purifies our natures, and fits us for happiness and service in both worlds. Jesus offers the only practical plan of salvation from sin. The Bible plan of redemption is the only plan that works.
Paul, a murderer, with his heart full of malignant hate, and his hands stained with blood, greedy to imprison men and women, „breathing out threatening and slaughter,” looks to Jesus by simple faith, and is changed into a gentle and loving Christian, rejoicing in suffering and persecution. He rose to such heights, by the help of Jesus, that he loved his enemies, and was willing to be damned, if that would save their souls. What glorious men the apostles became by the transforming power of Jesus! What grand men and women the long line of martyrs were. The men and women who have blest world most, have been believers in the Bible, and not in evolution. Perhaps a million martyrs have died for Jesus. Where are the martyrs for evolution?
Augustine was redeemed from a life of vice and dissipation, blessed the world with his writings, and one of the greatest leaders of thought in all ages John Bunyan was so profane that the most vicious would cross the street to avoid him. The gospel made him one of the holiest of men. His Pilgrim’s Progress has been translated into hundreds of languages, and read by millions. John G. Woolley was a maudlin drunkard, intent on taking his own life–friends, money, character, and reputation lost–but was converted and preached, with burning eloquence, the gospel of temperance and prohibition
EIijah P. Brown, a zealous infidel, heard Mr. Moody preach on the love of God, found the Savior, and became a brilliant defender of the faith.
Chundra Lela, the daughter of a Brahman spent a fortune and lived a life of self inflicted torture, seeing salvation at all the great shrines of India, but found none, until she heard the simple story of Jesus from the lips of a missionary. That matchless name gave her victory over sin, and transformed her into a saint and soul-winner for Jesus. Maurice Ruben, a successful Jewish merchant of Pittsburgh, rejected Christianity and the Jewish religion as well. He was converted, ostracized, persecuted, thrust into an insane asylum unjustly and told he must give up Jesus or his wife and child. He chose Jesus. His family soon became Christians and joined him in the great Jewish mission in Pittsburgh in a single night, the mountain of floods in India caused the death of the six children of Rev. D.H. Lee–only one living a short time to tell the story. They were all musicians. Answer: Out of the awful silence of that home, Mrs. Lee sent a triumphant paean of love. She was sustained by the power of God, so that she could kiss, in loving devotion, the hand that smote her. The Lee Memorial Orphanage, of Calcutta, stands as her monument.
Holy Ann of Canada, was so profane and such a terror, that this name was given her in derision. Touched by Jesus, she became so sweet a saint, that all regarded her as holy indeed indeed.
George Long, a denizen of the underworld, a victim of strong drink, cocaine, opium and morphine, ruined in body and soul, was redeemed and freed from these desperate vices, and made a successful persons-winner for Jesus.

These are a few of that „multitude that no man can number” who have been delivered from the power of sin and have overcome by faith in Jesus.
If evolution be true, it should be no hindrance but a great help. How many drunkards have been saved by a belief in a belief in evolution, and how many have been greater soul-winners by such belief?
How many criminals have been saved by the acceptance of the theory? Many have been made criminals, unbelievers, infidels, agnostic and atheists by it; how many have been made Christians? Can anyone be named who has been made a more earnest and successful soul-winner or a sweeter saint by espousal of the doctrine? If one blank page were set aside for a list of all victims of sin and vice and crime who were redeemed by faith in evolution, the space would be wasted. Is there any comfort in it to the dying, any help to the living? Would any evolutionist preacher read to the dying, the so-called classic passage from Darwin, showing that every living thing on the tangled bank came from one germ without any assistance from God? Is there any choice passage in all their books, fit to be read to the dying, or to a man in trouble, or in need of salvation? Is there anything to put hope in the breast, or inspire a man to a holy life? Anything to lift up a man sodden with sin, and redeem him from the fetters that bind him?
To give up the tested power of the gospel and to accept instead, the worthless guesses of evolution, ruinous in life and powerless in death, would be a sorry exchange indeed.

Many evolutionists frankly declare that the purpose of evolution is to destroy belief in God, or his active control of his creation. Prof. H. F. Osborn, of N. Y., a leading evolutionist, says, „In truth, from the period of the earlier stages of Greek thought, man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature. Other evolutionists openly announce their antagonism to the Bible and Christianity. Clarence Darrow, in the Tennessee. trial, called Christianity a „fool religion.”
Darwinism has been declared an attempt to eliminate God and all evidence of design and to substitute the old heathen doctrine of chance. With this announced purpose in view, we are not surprised to learn from Prof. J. H Leuba that one-half the professors teaching it did not believe in God nor the immortality of the soul, and that there is a rapid increase in the number of students who have discarded Christianity as they progress in their course–Freshmen, 15%; Juniors, 30%; Seniors 40 to 45%.. Children of Christian homes, taught to believe in God and Jesus, are led into infidelity and atheism rapidly, as they progress in their course. It makes one shudder to think what the future will be, if atheism and infidelity are taught in the guise of science. And the statistics show that evolution is one of the most fruitful sources of unbelief. What the students are taught today the world will believe tomorrow. How great the havoc caused by a comparatively few infidel or atheistic professors!
Dr. C. W. Elliott, a Unitarian, announced with apparently great glee, that already the young men and young women do not believe the story of the creation of Adam and Eve. The leaders of Bolshevist Russia said to Dr. Sherwood Eddy, with brutal frankness, „The Communist party, the only party allowed in Russia, is 100% atheistic. If a man believes in God, he can not be a member of the party. Russia is an example of a country where atheism is taught in the public schools, and we are moving all too fast in the same direction. The Red Army shot to death 500,000 men in Russia. The horrors of the French Revolution may be outdone, if we do not awake to our danger. Russia is cursed with a doctrine offensive alike to the Christian, the Jew, the Mohammedan and even the deist. In America the same condition may be brought about, more stealthily and more effectually in the name of science indeed, the Russian atheists feel the necessity of adopt tug the American method as more effective. An Associated Press dispatch of Dec. 24, 1924, states that Zinovieff a Soviet leader, admitted that the Communists had gone too far in their efforts to establish atheism by force, but he adds, „We shall pursue our attacks on Almighty God in due tense, and in an appropriate manner. We are confident we shall subdue him in his empyrean. We shall fight him where he hides himself…I have been informed that not only young Communists, but Boy Scouts, are mocking people who are religious. I have also been told that groups of Boy Scouts have even imprisoned whole congregations in church while they were worshiping! Our campaign against God and religion must be carried out in a pedagogic way, not by violence or force.” Do we want such a situation in America? We are drifting that way.
Evolution has no quarrel with atheism, agnosticism, modernism, or any other species of infidelity. Its quarrel is with Christianity and the Bible. Why should we wish to harmonize Christianity with evolution, when the theory can not possibly be true? Prof. Newman says, Readings in Evolution,” p. 8, „Contrary to a widespread idea, evolution (in what sense?) is by no means incompatible with religion (Christianity?) thoughtful theologians (whew!) of all creeds are in accord with the evolution idea.”
Dr. W W. Keen says, „I believe in God and evolution.” An infidel, a deist, even a heathen can say that. To harmonize evolution with Christianity is quite a different problem. Prof. Coulter, of Chicago University endeavors to show where „religion and evolution meet. But the „religion” is the religion of the infidel, not of the Christian. How can a theory which denies the creation of Adam and Eve and any intervention and control by the Creator, be harmonized with Christianity.
Rev. F. E. Clark, President of the World C. E., says, „The Darwinian theory, whatever it may be called today, has doubtless unsettled many minds. A hazy agnosticism has often taken the place of strenuous belief.” He is in a position to know.
A beloved friend, president of a prominent college, an evolutionist and a modernist, in a letter to the writer, claimed that evolution is nearest the truth, and those who believe it are nearest to „Him who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.” If this is true, how many evolutionists are more spiritual, more earnest, and more successful on that account, in winning souls to Jesus?
No doubt many have been made infidels and atheists. How many souls have been won to Jesus by Osborn, Newman, Conklin, Darrow, Lull, Shull, Scott, Coulter, Metcalf, Nutting, Thompson, Castle, Chapin, and all other prominent evolutionists? If evolution is nearest the truth, the number of their coverts to Jesus should be greatly increased. We await the information, which we do not have at hand, to see if the contention of our friend is correct.
Mrs. Aimee Semple McPherson preaches daily in the Angelus Temple, Los Angeles, California, which seats 5300 people. Often standing room is at a premium. Many souls are saved (over 14,000 in 1924), and thousands are healed in answer to prayer. What a tremendous loss to humanity, if the gospel of Jesus had not saved her from the infidelity and atheism of evolution! She writes as follows of her conversion: „The writer went to one of the services being held in my home town, by the Irish evangelist, Robert Semple, and entered the meeting practically an infidel, having studied Darwinism, atheistic theories until faith in God’s word was shaken. Never will these moments be forgotten. One could feel the power of God the moment one entered the building. Such singing, hands uplifted, faces radiant, such Amens and Hallelujahs, such power and fervor back of every word that was spoken, such exaltation of the deity of Jesus the necessity and power of the atoning blood the second Coming of Jesus, the power of the Holy Spirit to energize and get the believer read for his coming, gripped and stirred the heart…Never, never can the writer forget that hallowed hour, when, kneeling by a Morris chair in the home of a friend, early in the morning, with uplifted arms, she prayed and felt for the first time, the tremendous inflowing power of the Holy Ghost.” Behold the power of evolution to ruin, and of Jesus to save!
Evolutionists are, as a rule, modernists; and modernists are evolutionists, and are reckless in their zeal to destroy the faith of the young committed to their care We select the following 3 illustrations from a single article in the PRESBYTERIAN:
1. „A father sat in this office, a minister above middle life, his eyes full of tears, and his soul full of groans as he told how he had sent his son, who had been an orderly Christian boy, to a supposedly Christian college When the boy returned home, after graduation, he in formed his father that through instruction received, he had lost his faith, and believed none of those things he had been taught at home. The father was so shocked and overcome he could make no reply, but asked his son to kneel and pray with him as they used to do. The son refused and said he no longer believed in prayer.”
2. A good Christian father desired to give his young daughter the best educational advantages. She planned to be a missionary. He sent her to a well-known college considered Christian. This college had a Bible chair, but of the destructive, critical type. The young student absorbed what she was taught. She lost all reverence for the Bible and rejected it. She entirely lost her faith which she had learned from her father and mother. She gave up her mission plans, and developed into a Somalist. When about to graduate, she wrote her father frankly, that she had given up the faith he had taught her, and she was going to live with a man without marriage, as she did not believe in marriage. The father visited and protested. She smiled and called him an old fogy. She only consented to marriage when threatened with the civil law.”
3. „Another case reported to us by another father–His son, attending a so-called Christian college, reported that one of the professors declared that they and himself were hypocrites, because they attended chapel every morning where they were told that if they believed and did such things they would go to another world and play on a harp. But if they did not, they would burn. This he declared was all bosh. Then he called attention to the teachings in the college, that man in his body developed from a lower animal, but that man had no soul.
Yet some colleges and universities ask Christian people to give large sums, with no guarantee that evolution, infidelity and atheism will not be taught. Is it any wonder than Christian parents tremble while their sons and daughters run the gauntlet of infidel professors?

Evolution leads to infidelity and atheism, and is therefore a foe to Christianity. It denies the doctrine of special creation, and opposes the religion of the Christian, the Jew, and the Mohammedan. Why should not all these religions unite against the false and unsupported theory that would make havoc of them all?
If evolution could be shown reconcilable with Christianity, it would be lifted into respectability, but what would be the gain to Christianity? The Christian religion is reconcilable with all true science, and hails every true science with joy. The church loves true science, but hates a lie that poses as the truth. Christianity is readily reconcilable with Astronomy and Chemistry, but we do not try to reconcile it with the corresponding false sciences of astrology and alchemy. Why should we be concerned about such a reconciliation, since all the evidence offered in favor of evolution is not worthy of serious consideration? The facts hotly contest every guess. There is no conflict between Christianity and science. But evolution is not science. It is not knowledge. t is not truth. It is not proved. It is not certain. It is not probable. It is not possible. How can the serious student escape the conviction that evolution has not one chance out of a thousand, or even out of a million, to be a possible theory, and none whatever to be a probable or proven theory? It offers not one convincing argument. The evidence against the theory shows that it has not yet been proven and never can be.
The present population of the globe shows the unity of man in the days of Noah, and that the human race could not have begun 2,000,000 years ago, nor 1,000,000, nor 100,000, nor even 10,000. And no evidence that the evolutionist can bring to bear now or hereafter can ever set aside this mathematical demonstration. This one argument is sufficient to shatter evolution, if there were no more. But the whole fifty arguments in this book rush to the support of this one. They all harmonize with the Bible statements, but not one of them with the false and baneful theory of evolution. And no erroneous guess that they can make will escape mathematical detection. Why should we gratify the clamor of evolutionists, and seek to reconcile Christianity with a theory so manifestly false? o be worthy of acceptance, it must satisfactorily answer every one of the fifty arguments in this book and many more. Can it do so?
Evolution carried to a logical conclusion would destroy every thing precious to the heart of a Christian. It denies the real inspiration of the Bible. It makes Moses a liar. It denies the story of creation, and substitutes an impossible guess. It denies miracles, the providence of God, the creation of man and beast, and God’s government and control of the world. It laughs at the Virgin Birth and makes Jesus a descendant of the brute on both sides It denies his divinity, his miracles, his resurrection from the dead. It joins hands with agnosticism, modernism, and other forms of infidelity and atheism and gives them the strongest support they have ever had. All these hail evolution’s advent with exceeding great joy. It has the closest affinity with the wildest and worst theories ever proposed.
Its writers and proponents turn infidel and atheist. Its teachers and advocates lose their belief in God and the immortality of the soul. The young men and women who are taught, abandon the faith of their fathers and join the forces of unbelief. To be sure, some are saved by inconsistency, and still maintain their faith, but the havoc is great. It would strip Jesus of his Divinity, reduce him to the dimensions of a man, and make his religion powerless to save. The men who tore the seamless coat from the dying Jesus did a praiseworthy act, in comparison to those who would strip him of his deity and glory, for these are the garments of God!
The ruffians at the foot of the cross gambled for a mere human garment, but there are evolutionists who would „trample under foot the blood of the Son of God, and count it an unholy thing.” Those who would rob the world’s redeemer of his power and divinity, while speaking patronizingly in praise of his human traits, do but insult him with the vilest slander, which makes the derision of Calvary seem like praise.
We were not surprised to learn that, in the Tennessee trial, evolution was defended by agnostics, who made their chief attack on the Bible and revealed religion; and the school, the home and religion were defended by men of high Christian character. Had Mr. Darrow as earnestly defended Christianity and Mr. Bryan as earnestly opposed it, millions would have held up their hands m astonishment. But the alignment was natural, and opened the eyes of multitudes to the fact that evolution is a friend to infidelity and a foe to Christianity. Their objection to prayer during the sessions of the Court shows that they hated what God loves.
Christianity withstood ten fiery persecutions, lasting 300 years, at the hands of the Roman Empire, the mistress of the world. The church was purified, and grew and multiplied. Numerous heresies arose but all yielded to the truth. Sin and corruption, formality and worldliness, failed to hinder the triumphant march of the church.
Infidelity made a fierce attack in the eighteenth century in its own name, and lost. But the most dangerous attack ever made is on, by evolution claiming the name of science and modernism claiming the name of religion.
This fad. is truly for a day. God will win. Truth will live and error will die. But too many precious souls will be lost unless the world awakes to see its danger soon.
Mr. Bryan, m his last message, said: „Jesus has made of death a narrow starlit strip between the companionship of yesterday and the reunion of tomorrow. Evolution strikes out the stars, and deepens the gloom that enshrouds the tomb.” „Do these evolutionists stop to think of the crime they commit when they take faith out of the hearts of men and women and lead them out into a starlets night?”
Evolution wars with the religion of the Jews also. It attacks the Old Testament, dear alike to Christian and Jew. The Jews were the chosen people of God, and have played a large part in the history of the world. We gladly clasp hands with them against the common foe. David speaks for Jews and Christians in the 8th Psalm. In contrast to evolution, which degrades man to the level of the brute, he declares that man is but a little lower than God, (Heb. Elohim). The revisers had the courage so to translate. David under inspiration wrote better than he knew, and in absolute harmony with modern science:
„When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained, what is man (how great must he be) that thou are mindful of him (among thy great and marvelous works)? And the son of man that thou are a companion to him? For thou hast made him but little lower than God, and crownest him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under kits feet; all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” All animals confess the dominion of man since the strongest and fiercest flee from his face. Who would prefer the stung of stuff” that would place man below the brute, to the lofty description of the Hebrew Psalmist placing him a little lower than God?
Hon. William J. Bryan, when attending the Presbyterian General Assembly in Columbus, Ohio, in 1925, enclosed, in a letter to the writer, a copy of his address in John Wanamaker’s Church, Philadelphia, on evolution an modernism, from which we select the following:
All the modernists are evolutionists and their hypothesis of creation gives man a brute ancestry and makes him the apex of a gradual development extending over mil}ions of years. This hypothesis contains no place for, and has no need of, a plan of salvation. It is only a step from this philosophy to the philosophy of the atheist who considers man ‘a bundle of tendencies inherited from the lower animals,’ and regards sin as nothing more serious than a disease that should be treated rather than punished. One of the gravest objections to the doctrine of the modernists is that it ignores sin in the sense in which the Bible describes sin. Modernists ignore the cause of sin, the effects of sin, and the remedy for sin. They worship the intellect and overlook the heart, ‘out of which are the issues of life.’ No evangelical church has ever endorsed a single doctrine of the modernists.
„Evolution is the basis of modernism. Carried to a logical conclusion, it annihilates revea1ed religion. It made an avowed agnostic of Darwin (see his ‘Life and Letters’ a letter written on this subject just before his death); it has made agnostics of millions and atheists of hundreds of thousands, yet Christian taxpayers, not awake to its benumbing influence, allow Darwinism to be injected into the minds of immature students, many of whom return from college with their spiritual enthusiasm chilled if not destroyed.
„When we protest against the teaching of this tommy rot by instructors paid by taxation, they accuse us of stifling conscience and interfering with free speech. Not at all; let the atheist think what he pleases and say what he thinks to those who are willing to listen to him, but he cannot rightly demand pay from the taxpayers for teaching their children what they do not want taught. The hand that writes the pay check rules the school. As long as Christians must build Christian colleges in which to teach Christianity, atheists should be required to build their own colleges if they desire to teach atheism.
„With from one to three millions of distinct species in the animal and vegetable world, not a single species has been traced to another. Until species in the animal and vegetable world can be linked together, why should we assume without proof that man is a blood relative of any lower form of life? Those who become obsessed with the idea that they have brute blood in their veins devote their time to searching for missing links in the hope of connecting man with life below him; why do they prefer a jungle ancestry to creation by the Almighty for a purpose and according to a divine plan? Why will they travel around the world to find a part of a skull or remnants of a skeleton when they will not cross the street to save a soul?
„How can intelligent men and women underestimate the Jesus? He is no longer a wandering Jew with a few followers; He is the great fact of history and the growing figure of all time–there is no other growing figure in all the world today. Men–the greatest of them–rise and reign and pass away; only JESUS reigns and remains.
„They shall not take away our Lord. The Christian Church will not permit the degrading of its founder; it will defend at all times, everywhere and in every way, the historical Jesus. It believes that ‘there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.’ No diminutive Jesus can meet the religious need of the world today and throughout the centuries. Christ for all and forever, is the slogan of the church There has been apostasy in every age; attacks upon Christianity have been disguised under cloaks of many kinds, but it has withstood them all–‘The hammers are shattered but the anvil remains.’ The church will not yield now; it will continue its defense of the Bible, the Bible’s God and the Bible’s Jesus until ‘every knee shall bow and every tongue confess.’
„While it resists the attacks upon the integrity of God’s Word and the divinity of the Saviour, it will pray that those who are now making the attack may come under the influence of, and yield their hearts to, Him whose call is to all, whose hand is all power and who promises to be with His people ‘always, even unto the end of the world.’
„The Apostles’ Creed which has expressed the faith of the Christian Church for so many centuries shall not be emasculated by modernism.
„Faith of our fathers, living still
In spite of dungeon, fire and sword;
O how our hearts beat high with joy
Whene’er we hear that glorious word–
Faith of our fathers! holy faith,
We will be true to thee till death”

During the late world war, objects were concealed and the enemy deceived, by „camouflage.” Many undertake to deceive or to hide their meaning by a camouflage of terms. These terms are chosen to conceal or deceive. Terms that suggest advance, improvement, learning, science, etc., are used to describe unworthy theories, beliefs and movements. It is an unfair trick to win and often meets with undeserved success.
Evolution in the sense of growth and development, is true of a part of animal and plant life, and in this sense is undisputed. Some speak of the growth of a child and of all progress, as evolution. In the sense at issue, it means the development of all the 3,000,000 species of animals and plants, from one or a few primordial germs, without design or intelligence, or the aid of a Creator. A distinguished surgeon declares that evolution from the monkey is mere non-sense but that life is a constant evolution–two senses in the same sentence. Such confusion of meaning brings science into disrepute. The meaning is shifted to suit.
Science means knowledge. We are glibly told that science teaches the evolution of man when it teaches nothing of the kind. A mere theory is not science until proven. A man does not become a scientist by advocating an unproven theory, but by making some notable contribution to knowledge. These self-appointed scientists recklessly declare that the „consensus” of science favors evolution. We oppose evolution not because it is science, but because it is not science. There is no conflict between Christianity and real science, but a fight to the death with „science falsely so called.”
Religion is often taken to mean deism, or infidelity as well as Christianity. They show us „where evolution and religion meet,” provided deism or infidelity is religion, but not, if Christianity is religion–an inexcusable confusion of terms.
Law is sometimes spoken of as if it had intelligence and power. Sometimes as a subordinate deity, or agent of God, or an indefinite principle. Darwin says: „Plants and animals have all been produced by laws (?) acting around us.” That is impossible, since „laws can produce nothing. He evidently gives to laws the credit that belongs to God.
Nature, in like manner, is often used as a substitute for God, to avoid the mention of His name.
Modernism is a fine sounding word, suggestive of learning and culture and the last word in science, but doubts or denies many of the essential doctrines of the Christian religion. It is infidelity pure and simple and of the most dangerous kind, camouflaged under this attractive name. Who can deny the statement that the only thing modern about modernism is its hypocrisy? It is ancient infidelity pretending to be a Christian view. Bearing the Christian flag, it attacks Christianity. Modernists are evidently ashamed of a name which fitly describes their views, and seek another. Infidels have tried to win under their own name. They have failed. Will they succeed under the camouflaged name of modernism? Camouflaged under an attractive name, modernists doubt or deny the real inspiration of the Bible, the Virgin birth of Jesus, his deity, his miracles, his bodily resurrection, the resurrection of the dead, and his personal second coming to judge the quick and the dead. Some modernists reject a part of these great truths, and some reject all.
Liberal is another term stolen by infidels ashamed of their own name. They are no more liberal in a good sense than others.
A Rationalist is not entitled to the term, because he is often more innocent of reasoning than his opponents. Reason is not opposed to revelation. We believe in an inspired revelation, because it is reasonable to do so. Rationalism is another camouflage for infidelity. We can have some respect for an honest professed skeptic, but bow can we respect a man who insists on adding hypocrisy to his infidelity, that, by so doing, he may make greater havoc of the church? Modernists give such a diluted interpretation to inspiration, to the statements of Scripture, and the Apostles’ Creed, and the creeds of the churches, that all may mean little or nothing, and the floodgates of infidelity and atheism are opened wide.
It has been truly said, „If the Bible is not really inspired, it is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind; for, from lid to lid, it claims to be the word of God.” Likewise, if Moses was not inspired, he was the greatest liar of history.
Every variety of infidel and species of atheist will rejoice, if evolution be accepted–whether modernists, liberals, rationalists, or simple unbelievers on their way to the bottomless pit. If evolution wins, Christianity loses and the church fails.
We hope that scientists will consign to innocuous desuetude their camouflaged sesquipedalian vocabularies, and tell us what they mean in short words, so we all may know what they say.

Some would have us believe there is no God; or that matter is eternal; or that matter was evolved out of nothing; or that all things came by chance; or that there is nothing but matter–no God, no spirit, no mind, no soul.
Some would have us believe that God created nebulous matter, and then ceased to control the universe; that life developed spontaneously; that species developed by chance, or natural selection, or by a powerless „law,” from one primordial germ. Others say that all the countless exhibitions of design by a matchless Intelligence, are to be explained by a causo-mechanical theory, which means the theory of blind unintelligent chance, without purpose or design or interference of God. Some say that God may have created one germ or at most 4 or 5, and that 3,000,000 species of plants and animals developed from this microscopic beginning. We are asked to believe that some plants became animals, or some animals became plants, or that all plants and animals came from the one germ they allowed God to create. They say that all species developed by growth, but do not explain why we still have the one-celled amoeba, the microscopic bacilli of plant life, and the microscopic species of animal life. Many geologic species are largest at the beginning; many ancient animals were much larger than their successors; and the reptilian age was noted for animals of enormous size. Yet they want us to believe that growth is universal.
They ask us to believe, without proof, that some marine animals evolved into amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, some reptiles developed hair and became mammals, and some reptiles developed feathers and wings and became birds; some mammals became monkeys, and some monkeys became men. For evidence of this, there is not a single connecting link to show the transformation. Geology furnishes no fossils of the millions and billions of connecting links that must have existed. For the scheme would require not only millions of links between man and the monkey, but also millions between each of the 8 great changes from matter to man. Yet we are asked to accept these fantastic and impossible speculations as „science,” though it lead to infidelity and atheism and bolshevism and anarchy and chaos, wreck religion, make havoc of the church, and send countless souls to the lost world. What wonder that the soul recoils with horror from such an atheistic theory.

Evolution, leading to infidelity and atheism, is taught in many universities, colleges and high schools, and even in the lower grades of the public schools. It is taught also in some theological seminaries. It is proclaimed in some pulpits. Some of its devotees, who have slipped into places of power and influence, urge it with a zeal worthy of a better cause. The public libraries are crammed with books teaching it, with few, if any, opposed. Strange to say, it is advocated by some religious newspapers, along with modernism and other varieties o£ infidelity. Some secular newspapers seem eager to publish, on the front page, attacks on orthodoxy, and articles favoring the wildest claims of evolution. They call evolution science! What are we going to do about it? Shall we supinely submit, or do all in our power to oppose, check and suppress so pernicious a theory? What can we do?
We can refuse to patronize or endow such institutions as teach this or other forms of infidelity and atheism. We can aid those only that are safe. Much money that was given by devout Christians to colleges and seminaries, has been prostituted to teach what the donors hated, and to do great harm. The faculty and trustees can do much to eliminate false teaching, if they will. Use all possible pressure to bring this about.
Evolution is taught in many high schools supported by the taxpayers’ money. This should not be tolerated. Text books declare that man is descended from the brute, as if there were no doubt about it! Laws should be enacted and courts appealed to, to protect the youth. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Oregon case, gives strong hope that the teaching of evolution would not be permitted, if a case were carried up to the highest court. It should be done. If Christianity cannot be taught in the public schools, must we submit to the teaching of infidelity and atheism in the name of science? Intolerable outrage! In New York 15,000 people, on a recent Sunday, shouted for atheistic Bolshevism, and condemned the United States government. A theory that encourages such a belief should not be taught. When the people awake to see the baneful effects, they will smite the fraud to the earth. Protests should be made to Boards of Education, superintendents, and all in authority. The power of public opinion should be brought to bear. Two states already have forbidden such instruction, and others will, no doubt, follow. The Associated Press, in this morning’s papers, calls the struggle a contest between religion and science, and thousands of shallow thinkers will believe that evolution is really science!
We quote from Mauro’s „Evolution at the Bar,” p. 71: „A parent writing to a religious periodical, tells of a text book brought home by his seven-year-old boy, the title of which was, „Home Geography for Primary Grades.” Discussing the subject of birds, this text book for primary grades says: „Ever so long ago, their grandfathers were not birds at all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor feathers. These grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail, and jaws with teeth. After a time feathers grew on their bodies, and their front legs were changed for flying. These were strange looking creatures. There are none living like them now.” Would any one who would teach a little child, the extremely improbable story that reptiles became birds, hesitate to teach that monkeys became men and that the story of creation was false?
Much can be done by the church authorities in refusing to license or ordain men who believe in any species of infidelity, or who have attended heretical seminaries. They should give their consent for candidates to attend only colleges, universities or seminaries that can be trusted. Congregations should know, before they call a pastor, that he is orthodox. Ministers are to preach the Gospel not infidelity.
Taboo all heretical religious papers; support those that defend the truth. Let infidels maintain infidel papers and build infidel colleges. Not one dollar to propagate infidelity! Make your one short consecrated life count for truth and righteousness. Many Christians are guilty of the great sin of indifference. In this greatest of all contests in which the Church was ever engaged, no one should be a slacker.
Many public libraries have 20 to 50 books in favor of evolution, and but one or two, if any, opposed. If dangerous books, like Wells’ „Outline of History”, McCabe’s
A. B. C. of Evolution ‘, and the works of Darwin, who doubted his own theory, and of Romanes, who renounced evolution and embraced Christ, can not be eliminated, libraries, in all fairness and in the interest of truth, should have an equal number in reply. Insist that librarians get a copy of this book, and other anti-evolution books, especially those mentioned herein; also other good books.
The author and publisher of this book will give 50~o commission for selling it, and will mail two copies for $1.00 to all who will become agents. If you can’t be an agent, you will do great good by securing another. A copy should be in the hands of every student, so he can discuss evolution with his teacher; and in the hands of every teacher, lawyer, doctor, minister, lawmaker or other professional man, of every parent whose children are liable to he taught the dangerous doctrine. It will be useful in removing error and in promoting the truth. Agents should canvass every school, college, university, seminary; every convention, conference; every religious and educational gathering. A copy should be in every library.
Every dollar of profit from the sale of this book will be given to Missions, to be loaned perpetually to help build churches, and to preach the Gospel in the secular newspapers of the world, and to distribute this book free. Every $1000 so loaned to churches at 5% compound interest, in 300 years, will, together with the accrued interest, aid in building 8,229,024 churches, by a loan of $1000 each for 5 years, and the new principal at the end of 300 years will be $2,273,528,000.
After four struggles, the writer was led to give the one-tenth, then the unpaid or „stolen” tenth (Mal. 3:8), then to consecrate the nine-tenths, and, lastly, to give all above an economical living. Many another consecrated Christian, on fire for God and burning with fury against all forms of infidelity, can do incalculable good by sending this book free to as many libraries, students, teachers ministers, lawyers and doctors as possible What „great good a heroic giver, in every land, could do with $1000 or $10,000 or $100,000! With 1,000,000 copies, we would wake the world!
A Canadian farmer gives $1000 to mail one to 5000 Canadian ministers and libraries. Who will give $2,000 to send one to 10,000 lawmakers in US?
Ministers, students, teachers, parents, yes, ALL are urged to be agents, employ sub-agents, earn wages, and do good. To agents, booksellers, libraries, churches, S. So organizations and societies needing funds, 2 to 25 mailed to any land, for 50c each cash; 25 or more, 40c– 60c– profit; 100 or more, 30c–70% profit! Books are the best profit–try 25 (show p. 76). To periodicals (for sale or premium), 30c. Special terms to general or national agents, speakers, publishers, colleges, seminaries, etc. Editors are hereby given permission FREE to use any selections. Add to each: „From ‘Evolution’ Disproved cloth ($1.00) by the co-author and publisher, Josephine K. Williams, MD, Waxahachie, Texas.
The fight is on. Only about 2% of the members of evangelical churches, it is said, are modernists and evolutionists. Let the rest assert their rights and say: „Common honesty requires you to restore to orthodoxy the institutions you have purloined. We demand them back. Henceforth you shall not steal our colleges, seminaries and public schools, and make our children infidels and atheists. You shall not, with our consent, capture our pulpits, and strip the world’s Redeemer of his power and glory.’

The following problems, when solved by the reader, will deepen the conviction that evolution is impossible. The erroneous guesses by evolutionists may be checked up and disproved by mathematical problems. No stronger proof could well be devised. For pattern solutions, refer to the preceding text. A reward will be given to the first person who points out a material error. Test, verify or correct the following solutions–
1. If the first human pair lived 2,000,000 years ago, as the evolutionists claim, and the population has doubled itself in every 1612.51 years (one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase), what would be the present population of the globe? Answer: 18,932,139,737,991 followed by 360 figures; or 18, 932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,i37,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.
2. If the first human pair lived 100,000 years ago (a period much less than evolution required), what would be the present population at the same low rate of increase? Answer: 4,660,210,253,138,204,000; or 2,527,570,733 times as many as are living now.
3. At the above rate of increase how many human beings would have survived in the 517i years since Noah? Answer: 9. How many Jews, in the 3850 years since Jacob’s marriage? Answer: 5.
4. If the human race doubled its numbers every 168.3 years since Noah became a father (5177 years) what would be the population of the globe? Answer: 1,804,187,000–just what it is.
5. If the Jews doubled their numbers every 161.251 years since Jacob’s marriage (3850 years ago), how many Jews would there have been in 1922? Answer: 15,393,815, just the number reported.
6. What guess of man’s age can stand the test of mathematics? Answer: Not a single guess ever made assigning a great age to man–nothing greater than the age indicated by the Scriptures; 2,000,000, or 1,000,000, or 100,000 years are clearly out of the question.
7. If life began 60,000,000 years ago, and the human race 2,000,000 years ago, how much sub-normal should have been the brain and mind of man at that time? Answer: 1/30 or 3 1/3%; or 962/3% normal; or 1450 c.c., counting 1500 c.c. normal–more nearly normal than many nations now.
8. How much if life began 500,000,000 years ago? Answer: .4%; or 99.6% normal; or 1494 c.c., far more c.c than a large part of mankind can claim
9. If man had, in 58,000,000 years, developed only the same skull capacity as the other members of the simian family (not over 600 c.c.), how much must he have gained in 2,000,000 years? Answer: 900 c.c., which is a development 43.5 times as rapid in 2,000,000 years as in the 58,000,000 years preceding. How could that be?
10. If life began 500,000,000 years ago, how would the rapidity of skull and brain development in 2,000.000 years compare with that of the 498,000,000 years preceding? Answer: 373.5 times as great.
11. If the skull of the pithecanthropus was two-thirds normal, or 1000 c.c., how many years ago must it have lived, in case life began 60,000,000 years ago? Answer: 20,000,000; in case life began 500,000,000 years ago? Answer: 166,666,666.
12. If the Piltdown „man” had a normal skull capacity of 1070 c.c., as claimed, how long ago did he live, if life had begun 60,000 years ago? Answer: 17,200,000 years. If 500,000,000 years ago? Answer 143,333,333 years.
13. If the Neanderthal man had a capacity of 1408 c.c. (assigned by Dr. Osborn), how many years ago must he have lived if 60,000,000 years have passed since life began? Answer: 3,680,000; if 500,000,000 years? Answer: 30,666,666. If 1800 c.c. be taken as normal instead of 1500 c.c. as some insist, these great periods since these „ape-men” existed must be enormously increased, in some cases 50%.
14. If, on the other hand, the pithecanthropus really lived 750,000 years ago, what, with normal development, should have been its skull capacity, if life began 60,000,000 ago? Answer: 98.75%; or 1481 c.c. If life began 500,000,000 years ago? Answer: 99.85%; or 1497.77 c.c. In either case, practically normal.
15. If the Piltdown „man” lived 150,000 years ago, as claimed, what should have been his brain capacity, if life has lasted 60,000,000 years? Answer: 9g.75%; or 1496.25 c.c. If 500,000,000 years? Answer: 9997%; or 1499.55 c.c. Very nearly normal.
The above problems prove either that these alleged links could not have lived in the periods assigned them, or else they must have had a brain capacity almost normal, and far greater than assigned to them.
16. The habitable countries of the world total 50,670,837 sq. mi. If we estimate that the garden of Eden occupied 10,000 sq. mi. or 6,400,000 acres, there would be 5067 such areas in the world. What chance would Moses have, not knowing, to guess the correct location? Answer: 1 chance out of 5067–virtually none at all.
17. If Moses, not knowing the order of creation, enumerates 11 areas events in their correct scientific order, what chance had he to guess the correct order, Answer: 1 chance out of 39,916,800. If 15 great events, as some biblical scholars point out? Answer: 1 chance out of 1,307,674,368,000. (Solve by Permutation.)
18. If there are now 1,500,000 species of animals, coming from a single primordial germ or cell which existed 60,000,000 years ago, how many species of animals should have arisen or matured in the last 6000 years’ Answer: 3000; or one every two years. If life has existed 500,000,000 years, 360 new animal species were due in the last 6000 years. Evolutionists declare they do not know that a single new species has arisen in the last 6000 years! Even Darwin said, „Not one change of species into another is on record.”
19. If the skeletons of 200,000 prehistoric horses were found in a single locality, Lyons, France, how many skeletons of prehistoric man should we expect? Answer: Many millions. How many are there? Not a single or undisputed skeleton of an ape-man!
20. If each of the two eyes and ears as well as the nose and the mouth occupy, on an average, one-thousandth part of the surface of the body, what, if we exclude God’s design, is the mathematical probability that they would appear where they are? Answer: .001x.001x .001x.001 x.001x.001; = .000,000,000,000,000,001; or 1 chance in a billion billion! (Solved by Compound Probability.)
21. Evolutionists claim at least 8 great transmutations from matter to man: matter, plant-life, invertebrates, vertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and man. If we make the extremely generous estimate of 60% to represent the probability of each transmutation, what is the compound probability that all would take place? Answer: 1 chance in 6.0, which means an extreme improbability.
22. If there is 1 chance in 10 that each transmutation has taken place, which is far more than the evidence warrants, what fraction represents the probability that all these great changes have occurred? Answer: 0.1 raised to the eighth power, or .00000001; or 1 chance in 100,00.0,000.
23. If the probability of a change of one member of one species into another species be expressed by .1 (an over-estimate), what fraction marks the probability of a million members making the same change? Answer: 0.1 raised to the millionth power; or 1 preceded by 999,999 decimal ciphers; or a common fraction with 1 as a numerator and a million figures as a denominator; or 1 chance out of a number expressed by 1,000,000 figures, which would fill 3 volumes like this book. Such changes were absolutely impossible, but necessary for evolution.
24. If the scattered remains of the pithecanthropus were found in the sand only 40 ft. below the surface, and the rate of accumulation were no greater than the slow accretions that buried the mountain city of Jerusalem 20 feet deep in 1900 years, what would be the extreme age of these remains? Answer: 3800 years, instead of 750,000 years.
25. If the Heidelberg jaw was found in sand 69 ft. deep, what would be its maximum age, estimated in the same way? Answer: 6555 years instead of 375,000. Who believes that sand in a river valley would accumulate no more rapidly than dust on the mountains? Or that it took 750,000 or even 375,000 years to cover with sand these precious remains such a shallow depth? A few centuries at most would account for such a depth. Can there be any doubt that these were abnormal bones of historic man and brute?
26. Did any other false theory that ever posed as science, have less to support its claims than evolution?
27. Believing that a Christian should give to the Lord all above his necessities, none of the profits on this book will be retained by the publisher, but all will be donated to missions, to be perpetually loaned to churches, and to preach the gospel through the secular newspapers of the world, and to aid in the free distribution of th3s book as explained on pages 116 and 117. How many churches will every $1000 together with the compound interest thereon, help to build in 300 years, if the average loan to each church is $1000 for 5 years at 5%? Answer: 8,229,024; and the new principal will then be $2,273,528,000.
28. How could $1000 be given to do more good than for these three purposes?
29. „For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”
30. What shall it profit a man, if he wins great fame as a scientist, persuades a great multitude to accept evolution, infidelity and atheism, and leads a great company to the lost world, by destroying their faith in God and in Jesus Christ?

From far-off Australia comes this sermon by Rev. R. Ditterich. What more fitting climax in honor of Christ whose worshipers belt the globe? „Christ is All,” a paean of praise, which has been sung both sides the sea, and published in three Hymnals and over sixty song books, will close this volume, dedicated to the glory of God.
Text: „Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”–Matt. 16.16.
Jesus asked a great question, and Peter made a great reply. No prophet, no priest, no king, no patriarch of Israel had ever been greeted in such fashion. Of nobody else in the world are these words spoken today. How pure must have been the life, how majestic the personality, how wise the utterances, how divine the deeds, that compelled this thrilling answer from the apostle’s lips. Surely something really wonderful beyond all previous Hebrew experience was necessary before Jews could bring themselves to acknowledge any man, however exalted, as divine. The miracle of winning such a confession is testimony to the sovereign greatness of Jesus.
We, too, have to answer the same question, and there are facts which lead us to the same great confession of faith.

1. Jesus, a peasant, is hailed today as King by people speaking 750 languages and dialects, in all climes, and of all classes. People of every color raise to Him the song of praise and crown Him „Lord of all.” There is nothing like this in all history. No other has ever approached this degree of sovereignty. His kingdom pervades the world. It is a fact that challenges thought. No world conqueror has ever had such an empire. Beside this the royalty of men like Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon, and more modern aspirants is shadowy and ghostlike. His is an abiding and a spiritual dominion
2. Though an unlettered peasant, Jesus has become the world’s greatest teacher. For all our best knowledge of God, for the revelation of divine Fatherly love, for our highest ideals of virtue, for man’s most glorious hope, people on all sides look to Him. Not only men of the highest rank, but men of the richest culture sit at His feet. The purest souls sit at His feet. His golden rule will never be supplanted. His name has become the synonym for all that is true and gracious. To be Christ-like must ever remain man’s highest ideal.
3. He was a Jew, and yet He founded the brotherhood of man. In His day Jews had no dealings with Samaritans. Answer: But Jesus had. Jews were fenced off from all other nations in the most exclusive way. But His heart was all-inclusive, and He broke down all walls that separated class from class as well as nation from nation. His thought was universal. His spirit was international. He founded a kingdom based, as Napoleon said, not on force but on love, and love is universal. It leaps over mountains, it spans space. Answer: It speaks in all tongues. The true League of Nations and the real disarmament are part of His plan for the world. He was son of Israel only incidentally. Essentially He was Son of Man–the true brother of all mankind.
4. His life was short, but it changed the world. No one ever did so much in so short a time. At the most his years numbered thirty-three years, and of these only a little less than three were devoted to public ministry, and these were spent in a conquered province of the Roman Empire. He was killed by aliens at the request of His own countrymen. And yet time is reckoned from His birth. The very terms B. C. and A. D. have great significance. He divides not only time, but also space. The nations are Christian and non-Christian, which is about equal to saying, civilized and barbarous. One has only to think of the ideals and practices of pagan people before they received the influences of Christianity to see the difference He makes everywhere. No tribe on earth was ever lifted from savagery by the influence of Socrates, no crime-soaked soul was ever saved by his name and yet Socrates was the wisest and noblest of the Greeks. He lived for seventy years and for forty years taught the young men in the most cultured age and among the most intellectual people in the world. But Jesus has lifted cannibals and washed the souls of men who were steeped in blackest vice. The rationalist Lecky said that the simple record of His three brief years of active life had done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the inquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists.
5. He was crucified, and made of the cross a throne from which to rule the hearts of men. The cross was a gallows far more hideous and cruel than the hangman’s gallows. It was the symbol of crime, of shame, of degradation. He transformed it. It is today the symbol of love, of purity, of virtue. His dream came true. Once only did a man dream that by dying upon a cross would He teach men to say that God is love, that love is universal, that there is hope for sinners, and that the worship of God must be spiritual. This is the miracle of the ages. The Crucified has become the King.
Here then are five tremendous facts. They are unique If only one were true it would make Him remarkable, but they are all true.

What shall we say of this Man? He accepted Peter’s tribute. He allowed Jews to take up stones to stone Him for claiming to be Son of God. He was conscious of being divine. He forgave sins, which is God’s prerogative He promised rest to the weary soul, which the Old Testament set forth as God’s own gift. He said that He came to give life eternal, although God is the giver of life. He said that none could know the Father except through Him. He spoke to God of the glory which they shared together before the world was. Just in proportion as men have acknowledged His claims in their hearts have they found peace with God and conquest over sin and the fear of worldly evil. As we consider all these things we are led to repeat Peter’s confession, „Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” for God the Father’s face shines upon us through Him and heaven is opened to us as we look upon Him. In the heart of this the purest of men was the clear, constant consciousness that He was divine He always spoke and acted consistently with this consciousness. Unique in character, He made claims that would have stamped any other man as an impostor. Humility and majesty dwell together in Him. He could say, „I am meek and lowly in heart,” and also „I and my Father are one.” He would call men His „brethren” and yet accept from them the words, „My Lord and my God.”
This wonderful character came of a race that had for ages looked for the coming of a Messiah, and whose prophetic literature was burdened with this hope. After his death his disciples who were heartbroken and cowed became inspired with a heroism that cheerfully faced martyrdom. All these facts are shining lights that point to the truth which Peter confessed. That truth is enshrined in the triumphant words of the Te Deum, „Thou are the King of glory, O Christ. Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.”
And the Christ of history, the exalted Son of God, is a living Presence with us today. Not remote but ever near, He walks by our side in all life’s experiences. Not only enthroned in heavenly glory
„But warm, sweet, tender, even yet
A present help is He
And faith has still its Olivet
And love its Galilee.”
Such is our wonderful Savior, a Friend with human heart of sympathy who has trod our pathway and is touched with the feeling of our infirmities; a Shepherd who gave His life for the sheep in an all-atoning sacrifice; an Advocate who represents us with all-prevailing power before the throne of the Judge Eternal; a Champion who can break the power of canceled sin and set the prisoner free; a Victor who can smite death’s threatening wave before us; a Lord in whom we see the beauty and glory of the face of God. We are called upon to confess Him with lip and life. To us to live is Christ. Knowing Him we have eternal life. We have all the soul needs in Jesus. There is no substitute for Him. None can share His throne in our hearts. The Kingdom is His who is the Christ–the anointed King. Our joy is in Him, where all fullness dwells. We can say with Charles Wesley, „Thou, O Christ, art all I want,” and our daily life should be one of close, constant communion with Christ.

Creation or Evolution, Which?

by A. T. Jones

I am going to speak this afternoon on the subject of evolution. I want you to pay close attention and find out for yourselves whether or not you are evolutionists. First of all, I will read to you what evolution is; then as we follow along, you can see whether or not you are an evolutionist. These statements are all copied from a treatise on evolution, written by one of the chief evolutionists; therefore, they are all correct, so far as they go, as definitions:
„Evolution is the theory that represents the course of the world as a gradual transition from the indeterminate to the determinate, from the uniform to the varied, and which assumes the cause of these processes to be immanent in the world itself that is to be thus transformed.”
„Evolution is thus almost synonymous with progress. It is a transition from the lower to the higher, from the worse to the better. Thus progress points to an increased value in existence, as judged by our feelings.”
Now notice the particular points in these three sentences: evolution represents the course of the world as a gradual transition from the lower to the higher, from the worse to the better; and assumes that this process is immanent in the world itself thus to be transformed. That is to say, the thing gets better of itself; and that which causes it to get better is itself. And this progress marks „an increased value in existence, as judged by our feelings.” That is to say, you know you are better, because you feel better. You know there has been progress, because you feel it. Your feelings regulate your standing. Your knowledge of your feelings regulates your progress from worse to better.
Now in this matter of progress from worse to better, have your feelings anything to do with it? If they have, what are you? Every one here this afternoon who measures his progress, the value of his experience, by his feelings, is an evolutionist: I care not if he has been a Christian for forty years, he is an evolutionist just the same. And all his Christianity, all his religion, is a mere profession without the fact, simply a form without the power.
Now I read what evolution is, in another way; so that you can see that it is infidelity. Then, if you find yourself an evolutionist, you know at once that you are an infidel: „The hypothesis of evolution aims at answering a number of questions respecting the beginning, or genesis, of things.” It „helps to restore the ancient sentiment toward nature as our parent and the source of our life.”
One of the branches of this sort of science, that has come most toward the establishment of the doctrine of evolution, is the new science of geology, which has instituted the conception of vast and unimaginable periods of time in the past history of our globe. These vast and unimaginable periods, as another one of the chief writers on this subject–the author of it indeed–says, „is the indispensable basis for understanding man’s origin” in the process of evolution. So that the progress that has been made has been through countless ages. Yet this progress has not been steady and straight forward from its inception until its present condition. It has been through many ups and downs. There have been many times of great beauty and symmetry; then there would come a cataclysm or an eruption and all would go to pieces, as it were. Again the process would start from that condition of things and build up again. Many, many times this process has been gone through, and that is the process of evolution–the transition from the lower to a higher, from the worse to the better.
Now what has been the process of your progress from the worse to the better? Has it been through „many ups and downs?” Has your acquiring of the power to do the good–the good works which are of God–been through a long process of ups and downs from the time of your first profession of Christianity until now? Has it appeared sometimes that you had apparently made great progress, that you were doing well, and that everything was nice and pleasant; and then, without a moment’s warning there would come a cataclysm, or an eruption, and all be spoiled? Nevertheless, in spite of all the ups and downs, you start in for another effort: and so through this process, long-continued, you have come to where you are today, and in „looking back” over it all, you can mark some progress, you think, as judged by your feelings–is that your experience? Is that the way you have made progress?
In other words, are you an evolutionist? Don’t dodge; confess the honest truth, for I want to get you out of evolutionism this afternoon. There is a way to get out of it, and everyone who came into this house an evolutionist can go out a Christian. So if, when I am describing an evolutionist, so plainly that you see yourself, just say so, admit that it is yourself, and then follow along the steps that God will give you, and that will bring you out of it all. But I say plainly to you that, if that which I have described has been your experience, if that has been the kind of progress that you have made in your Christian life, then you are an evolutionist, whether you admit it or not. The best way, however, is to admit it, then quit it, and be a Christian.
Another phase of it: „Evolution, so far as it goes, looks upon matter as eternal.” And „by assuming” this, „the notion of creation is eliminated from those regions of existence to which it is applied.” Now if you look to yourself for the principle which would assure that progress that must be made in you as certainly as ever you reach the kingdom of God; if you suppose that that is immanent in yourself and that if you could get it rightly to work, and superintend it properly when it had been thus got to work, it would come out all right. if thus you have been expecting, watching, and marking your progress, you are an evolutionist. For I read further what evolution is: „It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. . . . The idea of evolution, as applied to the formation of the world as a whole, is opposed to that of a direct creative volition.”
That is, evolution, as defined by those who made it–that the world came, and all there is of it, of itself, and that the principle that has brought it to the condition in which it is, is immanent in itself, and is adequate to produce all that is. This being so, in the nature of things „evolution is directly antagonistic to creation.”
Now as to the world and all there is of it. You do not believe that it all came of itself. You know that you are not an evolutionist as to that, because you believe that God created all things. Every one of you here this afternoon would say that you believe that God created all things–the world and all there is in it. Evolution does not admit that; it has no place for creation.
There is, however, another phase of evolution that professedly is not absolutely antagonistic to creation. Those who made this evolution that I have read to you did not pretend to be anything but infidels–men without faith–for an infidel simply is a man without faith. Even though a person pretends to have faith and does not actually have it, he is an infidel. Of course the word „infidel” is more narrowly confined than that nowadays. The men who made this evolution that I have read to you were that kind of men, but when they spread that kind of doctrine abroad, there were a great number of people who professed to be Christians, who professed to be men of faith, who professed to believe the word of God, which teaches creation. These men, not knowing the word of God for themselves, not knowing it to be the word of God, but their faith being a mere form of faith without the power–these men, I say, being charmed with this new thing that had sprung up and wanting to be popular along with the new science and really not wanting to forsake altogether the word of God and the ways of faith, were not ready to say that they could get along without God, without creation somewhere, so they formed a sort of evolution with the Creator in it. That phase of it is called theistic evolution; that is, God started the thing, whenever that was, but since that it has been going on of itself. He started it and after that it was able of itself to accomplish all that has been done. This, however, is but a makeshift, a contrivance to save appearances, and is plainly declared by the true evolutionists to be but „a phase of transition from the creational to the evolutional hypothesis.” It is evolution only, because there is no half-way ground between creation and evolution.
Whether you are one of this kind or not, there are many of them, even among Christians–not so many as there used to be, thank the Lord!–who believe that we must have God forgive our sins and so start us on the way all right, but after that we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Accordingly, they do fear, and they do tremble, all the time, but they do not work out any salvation, because they do not have God constantly working in them, „both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Phil. 2:12, 13.
Now in Heb. 11:3 it is recorded that it is through faith that we understand that the worlds were framed–put together, arranged, built–„by the word of God: so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The earth which we have was not made of rocks; men were not made of monkeys, apes, and „the missing link,” and apes and monkeys and „the missing link” were not made of tadpoles, and tadpoles were not made of protoplasm originally away back at the beginning. No! „The worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
Now why is it that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear? Simply because the things of which these are made did not appear. And the reason those things did not appear is because they were not at all. They did not exist. The worlds were framed by the word of God, and the word of God is of that quality, it has that property about it, which, when the word is spoken, not only causes the thing to be, but causes to exist the material out of which the thing is made and of which the thing consists.
You know also the other scripture, that „by the word of the lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth . . . for he spake and it was.” Ps. 33:6-9. Upon this I will ask you a question: How long after He spoke, before the things were? How much time passed after He spoke, before the thing was? [Voice: „No time.”] Not a week? No. Not six long periods of time? No. Evolution even that which recognizes a Creator, holds that indefinite countless ages or „six long, indefinite periods of time,” passed in the formation fo the things which are seen, after he spoke. But that is evolution, not creation. Evolution is by long processes. Creation is by the word spoken.
When God, by speaking the word, had created the worlds, for this one He said, „Let there be light.” Now how much time passed between the words, „Let there be light,” and the time when the light came? I want you to understand this matter aright so that you can find out whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist. Let me ask this again. Were there not six long periods of time between the time when the word was spoken and the accomplishment of the fact? You say No. Was it not a week? No. Not a day? No. Not an hour? No. Not a minute? No. Nor even a second? No, indeed. There was not a second between the time when God said, „Let there be light,” and the existence of the light. [Voice: „Just as soon as the word was spoken, the light was.”] Yes, that is the way it was. I go over it thus minutely, so as to get it firmly fixed in your mind, for fear you will let it go presently when I ask you something further. Now is it settled that when God said, „Let there be light,” there was not a second of time between that and the shining of the light? [Voice: „Yes.”] All right. Then the man who allows that any time at all passed between God’s speaking and the appearing of the thing, is an evolutionist. If he makes it countless ages upon countless ages, he is simply more of an evolutionist than the one who thinks it took a day; he is the same thing, but more of it.
Next, God said, „Let there be a firmament.” And what then? It was so. Then from the time that God spoke, „Let there be a firmament . . . and let it divide the waters from the waters,” how long before a firmament was there? Was that done instantly? Yes. Then the man who holds that there was an indefinite, a very long, period of time between the speaking of the word and the existence of the fact–what is he? An evolutionist. If he allows that there was a day or an hour or a minute between the speaking of the word and the existence of the thing itself, that man does not recognize creation.
When the Lord said, „Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear,” also when he said, „Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit . . . it was so.” Then God set two great lights in the heavens and made the stars also, and when He spoke the word, „it was so.” He said, „Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, the fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament,” and it was so. When God said, „Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind,” it was so. When he spoke, it was always so. That is creation.
You see, then, that it is perfectly logical and reasonable enough too for the evolutionist to set aside the word of God and have no faith in it, for evolution itself is antagonistic to creation. When evolution is antagonistic to creation and creation is by the word of God, then evolution is antagonistic to the word of God. Of course the genuine or original, sound evolutionist did not have any place for that word, nor for the half-and-half evolutionists–those who bring in creation and the word of God to start things. It takes so long a time, such indefinite and indeterminate ages for evolution to accomplish anything that it does away with creation.
The genuine evolutionist recognizes that creation must be immediate, but he does not believe in immediate action, and therefore does not believe in creation. Do not forget that creation is immediate or else it is not creation, if not immediate, it is evolution. So touching again the creation at the beginning, when God speaks, there is in His word the creative energy to produce the thing which that word pronounces. That is creation, and that word of God is the same yesterday and today and forever; it lives and abides forever; it has everlasting life in it. The word of God is a living thing. The life that is in it is the life of God–eternal life. Therefore it is the word of eternal life, as the Lord Jesus said, and in the nature of things it abides and remains forever. Forever it is the word of God; forever it has creative energy in it.
So when Jesus was here, He said, „The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” The words that Jesus spoke are the words of God. They are imbued with the life of God. They are eternal life, they abide forever, and in them is the creative energy to produce the thing spoken.
This is illustrated by many incidents in the life of Christ, as narrated in the New Testament. I do not need to cite them all, but I will refer to one or two, so you can get hold of this principle. You remember that after the sermon on the mount, Jesus came down, and there met him a centurion, saying, „My servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.” The centurion said, „I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” Jesus turned to those standing about and said, „I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel.”
Israel had the Bible; they knew the word of God. They boasted of being the people of the Book, the people of God. They read it; they preached in their synagogues, „My word . . . shall accomplish that which I please.” They said, when they read that word, That is all right, the thing ought to be done. We see the necessity of it and will do it. We will accomplish what it says. Then they did their best to accomplish it. It took them a long while, so long indeed, that they never did it. Their real doing of the word was so far away that the greatest of them were led to exclaim, „If but one person could only for one day keep the whole law and not offend in one point–nay, if but one person could but keep that one point of the law which affected the due observance of the Sabbath–then the troubles of Israel would be ended, and the Messiah at last would come.” So, though they started in to do what the word said, it took them so long that they never got to it. What were they?
There was the word of God, which said, „It shall accomplish that which I please.” It was spoken thus of the creative power. And though they professed to recognize the creative energy of the word of God, yet in their own lives they left that all out, and said, We will do it. They looked to themselves for the process which would bring themselves to the point where that word and themselves would agree. What were they? Are you afraid to say, for fear you have been there yourself? Do not be afraid to say that they were evolutionists, for that is what they were, and that is what a good many of you are. Their course was antagonistic to creation; there was no creation about it. They were not made new creatures; no new life was formed within them; the thing was not accomplished by the power of God; it was all of themselves; and so far were they from believing in creation that they rejected the Creator and crucified Him out of the world. That is what evolution always does, for do not forget that „evolution is directly antagonistic to creation.”
Now these were the people upon whom Jesus looked when He made this statement about faith in Israel. Here was a man who was a Roman, who had grown up among the people who were Jews, and who set at naught the teachings of Jesus. That centurion had been around where Jesus was, and seen him talking, had heard His words and had seen the effect of them, until he himself said, Whatever that man speaks is so; when He says a thing, it is done. Now I am going to have the advantage of it. So he went to Jesus and said what is written. Jesus knew perfectly well that the man had his mind upon the power of His word to do that thing, and He replied, Very well, I will come and heal your servant. O no, my Lord, you do not need to come. You see this man was testing the matter to see whether or not there was any power in the word. Therefore he said, „Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” Jesus replied, „As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed.” When that word went forth, „so be it done unto thee,” how long before their man was healed? Twenty years? No. Didn’t he have to go through many ups and downs before he was certainly healed? Honest, now? No, no! When the word was spoken, the word did the thing that was spoken, and it did it at once.
Another day Jesus was walking along and a leper some distance from Him saw and recognized Him. He, too, had got hold of the blessed truth of the creative energy of the word of God. He said to Jesus, „If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” Jesus stopped and said, „I will; be thou clean. And as soon as He had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.” Mark 1:41, 42. We are not allowed to put a moment of time between speaking of the word and the accomplished fact: „Immediately” the leper was cleansed.
Now you see that the word of God at the beginning of creation had in it the creative energy to produce that thing which the word pronounced. you see that when Jesus came into the world to show men the way of life, to save them from their sins, He demonstrated, over and over again, here and there and everywhere, to all people and for all time, that that same word of God has that same creative energy in it yet; so that when that word is spoken, the creative energy is there to produce the thing.
Now are you an evolutionist or are you a creationist? That word speaks to you. You have read it; you profess to believe it. You believe in creation, as against the other evolutionists; now will you believe in creation as against yourself? Will you put yourself upon that platform today where you will allow nothing to come between you and the creative energy of that word–no period of time whatever?
Jesus said to a certain person, „Thy sins are forgiven.” How long before it was so? There was no length of time whatever between the word „forgiven” and the thing. That same word, „Thy sins are forgiven,” is spoken to you today. Why do you let any time pass between this word, which is spoken to you and the accomplishment of the thing? You said a while ago that anybody who let a minute, or even a second, pass between the speaking of the word of God and the production of the thing is an evolutionist. Very good; that is so. Stick to it. Now I ask you, Why is it that when He speaks forgiveness to you, you let whole days pass before forgiveness gets to you, before it is true in you? You said the other man is an evolutionist. What are you, I want to know? Are you going to stop being evolutionists and become creationists?
This day will be one of special importance to many here, because it is a time when many will decide this question one way or the other. If you go out of this house an evolutionist, you are in danger. It is to you a matter of life or death just now. You said that evolution is infidelity and that is so; therefore, if you go out of this house an evolutionist, where do you stand? What is your choice? And if you go out of this house without the forgiveness of sins, you are an evolutionist, because you allow time to pass between the speaking of the word and the accomplishment of the fact.
From what I have read, you see that whoever lets any time pass between the word spoken and the thing done, is an evolutionist. The word of God to you is, Man, „thy sins are forgiven thee.” Woman, „thy sins are forgiven thee.” [Elder Corliss: „Didn’t it say, Thy sins shall be forgiven?”] No, sir. „Thy sins are forgiven thee”–present tense, with an emphasis. „Thy sins are forgiven.” I thank God this is so, because the creative energy is in that word „forgiven” to take away all sin and create the man a new creature. I believe in creation. Do you? Do you believe in the creative energy that is in the word „forgiven” spoken to you? Or are you an evolutionist and do you say, I cannot see how that can be, because I am so bad? I have been trying to do right, but I have made many failures. I have had many ups and downs and have been down a good many more times than up. If that is what you say, you are an evolutionist, for that is evolution.
Many people have been longing and longing for a clean heart. They say, „I believe in the forgiveness of sin and all that and I would take it all, if I was sure that I could hold out, but there is so much evil in my heart and so many things to overcome that I do not have any confidence.” But there stands the word, „Create in me a clean heart.” A clean heart comes by creation and by no other means; and that creation is wrought by the word of God. For He says, „A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you.” Are you a creationist now or are you an evolutionist? Will you go out of this house with an evil heart or with a new heart created by the word of God, which has in it creative energy to produce a new heart? It speaks to you a new heart. To every one it speaks just that way, and if you allow a moment to pass between the speaking of the word and the new heart, you are an evolutionist. When you allow any time to pass between the word spoken and the fulfillment of that thing in your experience, then you are an evolutionist.
There are those in this house who have said, Yes, I want it. I am going to have it. I believe the word will accomplish it, but they have lengthened out the time until the next meeting and on and on, passing over years, and so they are just this much evolutionists. „While so many are hovering about the mystery of faith and godliness, they could have solved the matter by proclaiming [speaking abroad, telling it out], „I know that Jesus Christ is my portion forever.” The power to produce this is in the word of God, and when this is accepted, the creative energy is there producing the thing that is spoken. So you can settle the whole matter of the mystery of faith and godliness by proclaiming that you know that Christ is your portion forever.
There is a mystery in how God can be manifest in such sinful flesh as yours. But, mind you, the question is not now about the mystery; the question is, Is there such a thing as creation? Is there such a thing as a Creator, who can create in you a clean heart? Or is the whole thing simply evolution? Just now, the question from this day until the end of the world must be, Do you believe in the Creator? And when you believe in the Creator, how is it that He creates? Of course you say, it is by the word of God. Very good. Now does He create things for you by His word? Are you a creationist for the other evolutionists and then an evolutionist for the other creationists? How is it?
Another thing. The word says, „Be ye clean.” He said, back yonder, „Let there be light, and there was light.” He said to the leper, „Be thou clean,” and „immediately” he was clean. He says now to you, „Be ye clean,” and what now? Every one of you–what do you say? [Voice: „It is so.”] Then for your soul’s sake put yourself upon that creative word. Recognize the creative energy in the word of God which comes to you in the Bible, for this word of God in the Bible is the same here to you today that it was when it spoke into space the worlds on high and brought light out of darkness and cleansing to the leper. That word spoken to you today, if received, creates you new in Christ Jesus. That word, spoken in the dark waste and voice space of your heart, if received, produces there the light of God; that word spoken today to you afflicted with the leprosy of sin, if received, immediately cleanses you. Let it. Let it.
How shall I be clean? By the creative energy of that word, „Be ye clean.” Therefore it is written, „Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” John 15:3. Are you? Will you from this moment be a creationist? Or will you go on being an evolutionist?
See what a blessed thing this is. When you read the word, receive the word, and think upon the word, what is it to you all the time? O, it is creation! The creative energy is in you producing the things which the word speaks, and you are living in the very presence of the power of creation. Creation is going on in your life. God is creating in you righteousness, holiness, truth, faithfulness–every good and gracious thing.
You need not expect to get any good works out of yourself. You have been trying. The evolutionist tries and is always trying without accomplishing it. Why go about trying to do good works, when you know you fail? Listen. There will never be any good thing in you of any kind whatever from now till the world’s end, except it is created there by the Creator Himself, by His word, which has in it the creative energy. Do not forget that. Do you want to walk in good works when you go out of this house? It can be done only by being created in Jesus Christ unto those good works. Stop trying. Look to the Creator and receive His creative word. „Let the word of God dwell in you richly,” then those good works will appear; you will be a Christian. Then, because you live with the Creator and are in the presence of the creative energy, you will have that pleasant, quiet peace and genuine strength and building up that belong to a Christian.
When He tells you that „we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them,” then recognize the Creator, recognize only the good works that are created in you, paying no attention whatever to any work that is not crated there, because there is nothing good but what is created by the Lord.
Now you are created new in Christ Jesus. He says so. Thank Him that it is so. What! Will you be an evolutionist on that verse? That is the present tense, „We are his workmanship.” We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Are you? The word is spoken. It is the creative word. How much time are you going to allow between that word of God and your being created new? Of the creation in the beginning, you said that any man who allows even a minute to pass between the word and the thing is an evolutionist. What are you now as to this word of God, which creates men in Christ Jesus unto good works? Are you an evolutionist here? Come, let us all be creationists.
You and I are to call people to the supper; we are to say to all people, „Come, for all things are now ready.” How can I call to a man that all things are now ready, when I myself am not ready? It is a falsehood to start with. My words will not reach him. They are but an empty sound. But O, when there is in that call the creative energy of the word that has made us ready, that has cleansed us from sin, that has created us unto good works, that holds us as the sun is held in the course which God has marked out–then when we go forth and say to the world lying in wickedness, „Come, for all things are now ready,” they will hear. They will hear in the call the tones of the voice of the Good Shepherd, and will be cheered to come to Him for creative energy for themselves, to make them new creatures and prepare them for the supper to which they have been called.
This is where we are in this world’s history. God’s mark is being set upon the people. But remember, He will never set His mark upon one who is not cleansed from every defilement. God will not set His seal to something that is not true, that is not good. Would you ask Him to set His seal to righteousness that is altogether unrighteousness? You would not have the face to do that. You know that He is too righteous to do such a thing. Then He must cleanse you so that He can put His seal to His own work. He cannot put His seal to your work. His seal belongs only to a document which He Himself has approved. Let Him write His character upon your heart and then He can set His seal there. He can write His seal of approval upon your heart, only when His creative word has accomplished its purpose in your heart.
You can see in what a Presence we are; you can see in a measure how long it would take half to exhaust such a subject as this. But, brethren, when we do stop, let us stop in the presence of creation. Let us be no more evolutionists. Let not a moment pass between the word of God spoken to you and the accomplishment of the thing in you. Thus, living in the presence of creation, walking with the Creator, upheld by creative power, inspired by the creative energy–why, with a people such as that, God can move the world in a little while.
If at the beginning you thought this was a queer subject for such an occasion as today [it was the closing service of the week of prayer] you can now see that it is a strictly present truth. There are only the two ways. There is no halfway ground. Every man and woman in the world is either a creationist or an evolutionist. Evolution is infidelity; it is death. Creation is Christianity; it is life. Choose Creation, Christianity, and Life, that you may live. Let us be creationists only and creationists forever. And let all the people say, Amen.
February 21, 1899