16. The Bible vs. The Evolution Theory

1. Do you know -- that many, because of being taught evolution in schools of both lower and higher learning, have accepted this theory without ever finding out personally whether or not it agrees with facts of science and the teachings of the Word of God?

2. Do you know -- that evolutionists estimate that life and man have existed on earth anywhere from one hundred thousand to millions of years, the wide diversity in these guesses being good evidence of their unreliability?

3. Do you know -- that the Bible states, “In a beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), but that we are not told the length of time between this “beginning” and the conditions described in vs. 2, when “the earth was (had existed), though without form, and void” (waste and empty); nor how long the Spirit of God moved upon, or energized the waters (Genesis 1:2) before the six great “days” of Genesis 1 began in preparation for man?

4. Do you know -- that these six Creative “days” were not sun-days, of 24 hours each, (the sun and the moon were not created until the “fourth day”) but epochs which the Bible indicates to be of many years each, and hence as to their length the Bible statements and assured scientific findings do not disagree, though the Bible and true Science both disagree with evolutionists’ wild guesses?

5. Do you know -- that the Bible does not say that God created separately and individually the myriad kinds of plants and animals, but that His Spirit moved (that is, brooded or energized) (Genesis 1:2) so that eventually the waters and the earth brought forth plants and animals, each after its own kind (Genesis 12, 20, 24)?

6. Do you know -- that neither the Bible nor the rocks reveal exactly what method was used, but that the Bible and Science agree that the species are now fixed, each “after its kind,” in an unchangeable way, so that man cannot successfully blend them with one another?

7. Do you know -- that if nature or blind force had been the means of creation, we would see creation still evolving instead of seeing fixity of species all around us?

8. Do you know -- that mixing closely related species sometimes produces hybrids (e.g., the mating of the jackass and the mare produces the mule) but that such hybrids cannot reproduce?

9. Do you know -- that in Darwin’s experiments with pigeons, while he developed varieties within a specie, with feathers on their legs, crowns, etc., he was not able to change pigeons into another specie--his pigeons remaining pigeons, and if his special varieties were not kept separate from ordinary pigeons, they would revert back to the common level?

10. Do you know -- that thus Darwin corroborated the Bible statement that God created every creature after its own kind (genus), and that these cannot mix to form new ones which can reproduce, for each kind has its own seed in itself, after it’s own kind (Gen. 1:11, 21, 24)?

11. Do you know -- that evolutionists have failed to prove that one genus has evolved from another, i.e., man from the lower animals, and that their so-called missing links between man and the ape made by reconstructing skulls from a few fossil fragments have never been proven to be anything but a hoax as in the so-called Piltdown man?

12. Do you know -- that ancient civilizations and past masters in the Arts and Sciences show that man’s brain capacity is no greater now than it was many centuries ago, and indeed the Renaissance sculpture and art were finer than that of our day?

13. Do you know -- that the Bible teaches: man was originally created perfect--that in the creation of man, God did not decree merely that the earth should bring forth, thus implying a development as in the case of the lower animals (Gen. 1:24), but that God by a direct act “created man in His own mental and moral image” and likeness (Gen. 1:26, 27); (see also Gen. 2:7, 21-23); that God pronounced man “very good,” “perfect,” “upright” (Gen. 1:31; Deut. 32:4; Eccl. 7:29), and hence fit to be on trial for life before the bar of perfect Justice?

14. Do you know -- the Bible teaches: man’s fall from perfection and that under trial, the first man, Adam, a free moral agent, chose to disobey God and as a result fell from perfection into sin, reaping its penalty of death, which passed upon him and all his descendants (Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22)?

15. Do you know -- that the Bible tells of God’s perfect antidote for Adam’s fall from perfection: the Ransom for Adam and all born of Adam’s race, in “the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:4-6; Matt. 20:28; Rom. 5:18, 19; 1 John 2:2; John 3:16, 17)?

16. Do you know -- that because Evolution teaches that man evolved from lower animals and has continued to evolve, higher and higher, it denies the Biblical teaching that man was originally created perfect and fell into sin, therefore, evolution denies the need of a Savior to ransom him?

17. Do you know -- that since Evolution teaches the first man was an ape-man, it would be an unspeakable curse for mankind to be restored to the condition of that first man, and thus it denies the need for restitution and, indeed, denies all the major Biblical doctrines; thus no true Bible believer can be an Evolutionist since one denies the other.

18. We should, therefore -- “let God be true, though it make every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4) with “science, falsely so-called” (1 Tim. 6:20), which is so rampant in secular education today.

1. Some evolutionists are atheists, and teach that without an intelligent Creator, the universe with its plant and animal life produced themselves by a series of transmutations from one form to another. The theory of Darwinian evolution, however, is that God created matter, its forces and the first form, or less preferably, the first few forms of plant and animal life, which thenceforth developed themselves into ever higher forms, culminating in man.

2. These evolutionists (among whom some clergymen are to be found) convey the impression, with their theory that man evolved from the ape, that it is now commonly accepted by scholars, scientists and many churchmen in general. This theory is by no means true. Nevertheless, because this theory has been and still is being taught in education, and even in some churches, as well as advocated in many museum exhibits, books, newspapers, radio and television programs, etc., many people have more or less accepted it without ever investigating for themselves whether or not it is in harmony with reason, facts, and the teachings of the Bible. It is, therefore, appropriate that we examine here some of the main arguments that are advanced to support it, and also set forth some strong arguments against it.

3. First of all, it should be stated that evolution is built on the most extravagant guesses, which are proven to be unreliable by the fact that there is such a wide diversity in these guesses. Some evolutionists guess that the human race has existed 2 million years; others guess it as 100,000 years, and there are almost endless variations between these two figures. Some guess the age of the earth to be 50 million years and others 4 billion years. Some guess the age of plant life to be 3 billion years and others 40 million years. On almost everything connected with the time element, they widely and wildly disagree with one another.

4. Reasoning people at once see that on these matters they are long on guessing and short on facts, else they would be in reasonable harmony on such essential matters. Darwin, with his two principal works on evolution, in making his deductions, uses terms expressive of guessing 800 times -- terms like, “we suppose, if we may assume, perhaps, it may have been,” etc., thus a theory was built on 800 interdependent guesses! A theory so extremely improbably should never be taught as science or true knowledge. Rather, it should long ago have been assigned to oblivion, being too improbable to be even considered.

5. While rejecting the guesswork and speculations of evolutionists, let us not go to the opposite extreme of insisting that the creation of the earth and the preparing and ordering of it for man’s habitation were accomplished in a 24-hour day. We should keep in mind that the Bible account does not tell us how long it took God to create the earth (Gen. 1:1); nor how long an interval of time elapsed between the creation of the earth and the condition described in vs. 2, when “the earth was,” i.e., it existed, though it was waste and empty; nor how long the Spirit of God moved upon or energized the face of the waters, as described in Gen. 1:2, before the beginning of the first of the “days” of God’s ordering matters on earth to prepare it for man’s habitation (Gen. 1:3-5).

6. We should not assume that these “days” were periods of 24 hours only. The term “day,” both in the Bible and in common usage, frequently denotes a much longer period. In the Bible we find it used to designate a 40-year period (Psa. 95:7-10), a 1,000-year period (2 Per. 3:8), etc. and in common usage we speak of Luther’s day, Washington’s day, etc. We know that the “days” of Gen. 1 were not sun-days of 24 hours each, for neither the sun nor the moon was visible until the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-18); rather they were long periods of time. The Bible shows that the seventh of these “days” has been about 6,000 years long with 1,000 more years still to go.

7. If the last “day” is 7,000 years long, it could well be that each of the other “days” was of the same duration, making a total of 49,000 years in all. Viewed thus, there is no disagreement with true science and the Bible respecting creation, though there is much conflict between these statements and the wild guesses of evolutionists and others.

1. Evolution offers certain things as evidence of its “truth.” These “proofs” reveal the poverty-stricken condition of its so-called evidence. One of these is that a photograph revealed an infant three weeks old supporting its own weight for over two minutes. This would seem to be rather a proof that the first man was one who immediately, after his creation, stood erect. Another photograph shows infants holding their feet in the same position as a monkey holds his when climbing a tree. The claim is that this proves man’s descent from an ape-like ancestor. Such “proofs” are poor indeed!

2. The Philadelphia Bulletin gives the following excerpt of a Darwinian professor’s lecture: “Evidence that early man climbed trees with his feet lies in the way we wear the heels of our shoes, more at the outside. A baby can wiggle its big toe without wiggling its other toes, an indication that it once used its big toe in climbing trees,” (but since monkeys use their other toes also in climbing trees, we can see that this is indeed a wiggling argument.) “We often dream of falling. Those who fell out of the trees some 50,000 years ago and were killed, of course, had no descendants. Those who fell and were not hurt, of course, lived and so we are never hurt in our dreams of falling.” Some professors, “professing” themselves to be wise have indeed become fools! Imagine if the laws of Chemistry, Astronomy, Physics, etc. depended on such “proofs” as this offered by a professor in the above quotation! Yet some are fooled into thinking him scientific!

3. Evolutionists have moved heaven and earth in search of so-called missing links, particularly between man and the ape, but have never found an undoubted one. Some have offered four alleged missing links between man and the ape, Pithecanthropos, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man. But these will not bear close investigation and some scientists laugh them to scorn, especially since the Piltdown man has definitely been proven by chemical tests, and otherwise, to be a hoax.

4. How these alleged missing links originated is shown by the following: Dr. Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, in 1892 found in some sand in Java a small part of the top of a skull and a tooth, the latter three feet away from the former. Fifty feet away in more sand he found another tooth and a thigh bone. He claimed that these belonged to the same animal, “the missing link!” Shortly after their discovery, twenty-four of the leading European scientists examined these four fragments. Ten of these said that all of them belonged to an ape; seven said they belonged to a man, and seven (evolutionists) said they were the missing link. Prof. Vircow said, “There is no evidence at all that these bones are parts of the same creature.” But what did evolutionists do with these two teeth, one thigh bone and a very small part of a skull top? They had a reconstructor draw on his imagination and construct an entire image of what they thought was the missing link and called this figure Pithecanthropos, i.e., ape-man!

5. A very few bones were found at Piltdown, England, and likewise near Heidelberg and Neanderthal, Germany. The bones of all three of these finds combined would not fill a bushel basket, let alone fill up a complete human skeleton. The same recon-structor formed, out of his imagination, three “ape-man” figures from these few bones. They are indeed monuments of infamy to evolution, the laughing stock of biologists; yet, as per plan, they have been used, and some of them are still being used, to inoculate immature children and shallow thinking adults with the idea of man’s descent from brutes.

6. The folly of trying to establish anything definite as to man’s origin on the basis of a few fossil fragments is illustrated very well by the incident of the million dollar tooth found some years ago in the bed of a stream. It was regarded by eminent evolutionists as certainly out of the jaw of the famous and imaginary missing link. Imagine their chagrin when some time later, teeth -- exactly like it -- were found in the jaw of a wild pig!

7. As to the Piltdown man, the announcement of the British Museum that the Piltdown skull was a forgery caused one of the greatest sensations in scientific circles in the twentieth century.

8. In exposing the Piltdown man to be a fake, the British Museum bulletin explained that some unknown expert had: (a) broken off the front of the lower jaw of a big ape; (b) removed all its teeth except two molars; (c) stained the jaw to make it look like the fossil skull bones found in the gravel pit at Piltdown; (d) inserted the jaw bone so treated into this gravel pit, at the spot where the bones had been found, doing it so skillfully that the two experts who later came upon this jawbone when searching for fossils were convinced that the gravel had not been disturbed; (e) doctored a skull bone belonging to another skull, to make it look like the fossil bones found in the gravel pit; (f) doctored a molar tooth and filed it down to make it look like the molars in the jaw; (g) placed the doctored skull bone, the doctored molar and a fossilized bone fragment of a skull found in the gravel pit in such a position as led Charles Dawson and Dr. Smith Woodward to believe that they were all genuine fossils!

9. These charges were made by men of the highest scientific standing, including Dr. K. P. Oakley of the British Museum, Dr. W. E. LaGros Clark, and Dr. J. E. Weiner, professors in Oxford University. Many able scientists had challenged the correctness of the reconstruction of this skull when it was first produced, insisting that the jawbone was that of an ape or chimpanzee, but their protests went unheeded.

10. As to the Heidelberg and Neanderthal men, their few remaining bones exhibit less abnormalities than can be found in many humans now living, let alone bones of dead humans disfigured by the chemical action of the earth. In fact, many able scientists from the first have claimed that these findings were bones of abnormal humans; and even a few evolutionists so held. Yet partly on such flimsy, nonsensical evidence, evolutionists have been claiming man’s descent from apes as scientifically proven!

1. We will here quote from evolutionists themselves, disproving the claims made for the alleged missing links. Prof. 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 connection has been found between their hypothetical ancestral forms and a man at the present time. The whole hypothetical pedigree of man is not supported by a single fossil genus or a single fossil species.” Darwin says: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that one species has changed.” H. G. Wells, in his history, p. 69, admits: “We cannot say that Pithecanthropos is a direct human ancestor.” On p. 116 he gives a diagram showing that none of the four alleged missing links could have been an ancestor of the human race, since that one would be the last of his species, hence had no descendants.

2. Dr. Osborn, another eminent evolutionist, says that the Heidelberg man “shows no trace of being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape.” Again, speaking of the teeth of the Neanderthals, he says: “This special feature alone would exclude the Neanderthals from the ancestry of the human race.” Prof. Cope, a great anatomist says: “The thigh bone (of Pithecanthropos) is that of a man; it is in no sense a connecting link.” Dr. Orchard declares: “The remains bearing on this issue (these four supposed missing links) 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 human abnormalities. Prof. Bronce of the Geological and Paleontological Institute of Berlin University affirms: “Man appears suddenly in the Quaternary period. Paleontology tells us nothing on the subject - it knows nothing of the ancestors of man. With these remarks we leave these four fake missing links to the credulity of unreasoning men who, while posing as wise, seem only so in their own conceits. As Douglas Deward, F.Z.S., writing on his subject in World Science Review states, “The whole picture is one of twisted and highly disputable evidence.”

3. Another poverty-stricken argument evolutionists offer is this: In certain deep, dark caverns, notably in Altamira, Spain, there are paintings and frescoes of various animals, some of them now not existing. They claim that these pictures are 25,000 to 50,000 years old. But by their own admission, at the times of their ape-men, fire, torches, wicks, etc., were unknown. Then these paintings must have been made in the dark. But who could have done any painting that would reproduce good likenesses of animals in such darkness? Certainly not ape-men! How would they have known enough to mix the paints so as to produce the brown, red, black, yellow and white that appear in these paintings? How could ape-men have produced ladders and scaffolding needed for those paintings? How could these colors have remained so clear in those damp caverns for from 25,000 to 50,000 years? Do not these objections overthrow the theory of ape-men doing such painting, and point to some modern artist, using more modern equipment and drawing on his imagination (a thing allowable in art but not in science) as the one who did these paintings? How short of real proof must a theory be that will resort to such non-probable points!

4. Evolutionists resort to the alleged vestigial organs, organs in the human body that they allege have no use, as proofs that they were inherited from non-human ancestors. Their favorite organ is the appendix. This, they assert, proves that man descended from some animal that had some use for it; but, they claim, it is useless in man. Yet, as medical science and surgery have advanced, medical and scientific authorities, after exhaustive research, have found the appendix has its place at the beginning of the large colon in order to assist elimination. Thus, a very interesting use for this so-called vestigial organ has been found, and that to the unhappiness of evolutionists who are ever anxious to prove their kinship to beasts.

5. Blood tests are another argument that evolutionists allege for their doctrine. This is their argument: Dog’s blood injected into a horse kills the horse; but man’s blood injected into an ape does it very little harm. Hence, they reason, the dog and the horse are not closely related, while man is closely related to the ape. In reply we say, the dog’s blood is poisonous to most animals while the blood and blood serum of the sheep, goat and horse are not poisonous to other animals and man. Hence, serums are usually made from these animals, specially from the horse. But no serums for man have been made from apes because they do not help man. These facts would prove man to be more closely related to the sheep, goat and horse than to the ape, if the argument under examination were valid.

6. Again, the thyroid gland of the sheep serves man better when it replaces his, than that of the ape, as operations have proved. This also spoils the argument under review. Vaccine matter is taken from cows rather than from apes, another fact against the argument under question.

The Abrams’ Dynamizer, one of the most accurate of blood-testing instruments, proves that the blood reaction of the sheep, goat and horse are nearer that of human blood than is that of apes. We conclude, therefore, that blood tests do not prove man’s descent from apes, but rather clearly disprove it.

1. Evolution has invented this theory, according to which evolu-tionists claim that the human embryo passes, during the first few weeks of its existence, through all the stages of the lower species; i.e., the whole history of evolution is allegedly repeated in the first few weeks of the human embryo’s life. We ask, “How could all the alleged changes of the thousands of animal species be crowded into a few weeks?” This would be physically impossible.

2. Whatever resemblance there is in a human embryo to those of other animals is due to the fact that a wise Creator has in all mammals used the same basal structure which, as such, must appear in the early stages of all embryonic life; the variations due to differences in such species must come in later, i.e., after the basal mammal structure has been developed. Certainly an inventor would make the basal parts of similar inventions very much alike. So with God. This fact is as far from proving evolution from the standpoint of the similarity of the early stages of the human embryo to other mammalian embryos as the east is from the west. This variation amidst similarity we find on all hands, yet no two leaves, however similar, are exactly alike; nor are two human faces, two mountains, two snowflakes, nor are two of any other thing exactly alike. Like evolution, the recapitulation theory, once widely accepted, is now seriously questioned by the ablest scientists and is rejected by many of them. The above points certainly show that evolution cannot prove itself by the alleged recapitulation of all animal species in this theory.

3. Evolutionists point also to the wonderful inventions and the increased knowledge of our day as a proof of evolution working in man, ever lifting him to higher planes of existence. To a superficial thinker this seems to be a strong proof in favor of evolution. But under analysis this “proof” falls to the ground. In the first place, remarkably few individuals are real inventors. So too, remarkably few people are real inventors of thought, however widespread knowledge is. If evolution were true, the generality of the race now living would be tremendous in every area of life. But such is not the case; the greatest works of painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, music, oratory, statesmanship, philosophy, history, and religion, do not belong to our day. We, therefore, deny that humans have greater capacity now than in former times.

4. And what shall we say as to their claims on the increase of knowledge and inventions, as a proof of evolution? We reply that this increase, because of its suddenness and rapidity, so contrary to slow-going evolution’s alleged ways, must be due to extraordinary light that God here in the “Time of the end” (Daniel 12:9), since 1799, has been giving to mankind as a preparation for two things: (1) the overthrow of Satan’s empire, and (2) the needs of God’s kingdom on earth, soon to be established. The special knowledge of our time was in part designed to expose the rotten foundations of Satan’s empire in order to ready mankind to overthrow its present earthly status. Furthermore, in part, for the purpose of furnishing men with the instruments that will accomplish this destruction, many special inventions have recently come into existence. The constructive inventions of our time are also Divinely intended to prepare conditions among men for Millennial needs and progress. It is for these reasons that we have such a great increase of knowledge and inventions peculiarly marking our times above all others in these respects. Previous knowledge, of course, became the basis of our present knowledge, for previous generations hand on their knowledge to succeeding ones. Thus we stand upon the shoulders of previous generations in our basal knowledge. Since the invention of printing in 1440 AD, this has been the case more then ever before.

5. The special increased knowledge and many inventions of our time did not come in the way that evolutionists claim evolution works, i.e., slowly and gradually, but rather it has come about very suddenly and rapidly, compared with the rate of progress in all the years of man’s history. Beginning with the first steamboat, the rate of discoveries and inventions has rapidly leaped forward, and knowledge has been increased. In one man’s lifetime he has lived from the horse-and-buggy days to seeing a man walk on the moon! These facts do not prove that man’s capacity has increased, but rather that his opportunities to use his capacities have increased greatly, rapidly, and suddenly. These facts, therefore, disprove evolution and prove Divine providence to be working special opportunities to increase knowledge and multiply inventions, as preparations for the destruction of Satan’s empire and for the needs of God’s Kingdom, soon to be ushered in. Hence, not increased capacities, but increased opportunities to use one’s capacities, mark our day which, of course, disproves evolution.

1. Mendel, by a vast series of experiments in plant and animal life, has proved several natural laws of heredity. One of these is that the first offspring of a positive (dominant) and a negative (recessive) plant or animal takes after the dominant parent. In the second generation, the dominant one predominates, but the negative one appears. In the third or fourth generation, both appear about equally in the descendants. For instance, if a giant variety of peas is crossed with a dwarf variety, the offspring are all tall; in the second generation both appear, but the giant variety is in the proportion of 3 to 1. In the third or fourth generation they are on the average equal in number; but when these dwarfs are self-fertilized, all the successive offspring are dwarfs. Expe-riments with flowers, rabbits, cats, rats, dogs, etc., proved the same thing. This law, applied to man and apes, should make the ape appear in some generations among men. So, too, we ought to find some men turn to apes, in the negative characters. But nothing of the kind happens, which shows that there is no taint of the ape in man.

2. If evolution were true, and one species would evolve into another, hybrids would be indispensable for their functioning. But hybrids are well known to be sterile, which flatly contradicts evolution. God’s law that each should reproduce “after its kind” is proven by the sterility of hybrids to be the rule of reproduction. Thus, nature itself destroys the theory of evolution by its only possible avenue of operation--preservation of evoluted powers by propagation with other but kindred species. Species do not change nor unite with others to produce a new permanent species. For instance, dogs and cats do not interbreed and produce a new species A few closely related species are so much alike that we scarcely know whethern they are of different species or varieties of the same species, such as the jackass and the mare. These frequently interbreed, but their offspring is sterile. The same is true of the zebulon, the offspring of a zebra and a mare. Likewise, this is true of all other closely related species. A human and an ape cannot produce offspring, which proves that they are not even closely related species. But if evolution were true, we would have much and similar interbreeding with the production of fruitful offspring. Even plant hybrids, according to Darwin’s own testimony, are not permanent. All this goes to prove God’s law that each kind will bring forth no other species except its own. Surely this is a hopeless and helpless theory. The Standard Dictionary in the article on Hybridism states: “Hybridism is one of the greatest obstacles to the general acceptance of the principle of evolution.”

3. Another telling point against evolution is the fact that some insects have more skill and practical ability than apes. The honeybee and the ant have a social organization far superior to the ape and certainly surpass it in constructive ability, government and social life. They have armies, sentinels, police, courts (which decree penalties) and executioners of such penalties. They have a highly organized society with kings, queens, nobles, plebeians, higher and lower slaves, etc. The bee forms a honey cell laid out geometrically along the lines of a hexagonal prism, which the mathematical science of calculus proves is the most economical space and material saver known to science. Each cell is perfect in itself and is perfectly adjusted to its neighboring cells. A crowd of bees build these, even in the dark, with exquisite skill.

4. If evolution were true, why were these qualities in ever increasing development not transmitted to their alleged descendants in later developed species? The ape cannot, in his social life and in his activities, approach the degree of excellence attained by the bee and the ant. Yet, if evolution were true, the ape, being allegedly a so very much later evolved species than the bee and the ant, should be much more highly developed than these, as man is more highly developed than the ape. Furthermore, the skill of the bee and the ant does not come from their parents by heredity for the workers are all sterile. The drones are their fathers, and the queens, which aside from laying eggs do no work, are their mothers. Here, then, is a fact of development which is entirely apart from evolution and for which evolution can offer no satisfactory explanation. Creation is the only solution of this matter, God gifting the bees and ants with abilities that even the highest of the lower animals lack, and that do not appear in the intervening species; whereas if evolution were true, all alleged later species would increasingly excel the bee and the ant in these respects, which, except man, they do not do.

5. The Bible account of man’s creation, as given in Genesis, states that man was created, not as a microbe or protoplasm, nor one step removed form an ape, but “in the image of God created He him” (Gen. 1:27). Man was created in the mental, moral, and religious image of God (not a physical image, because God is a Spirit Being, while man is of another nature, i.e., human, fleshly, earthly). This thought of man’s original perfection of being is borne out by many other Bible statements. God looked upon His creation, Adam, with approval, seeing him to be “very good.” Deut. 32:4 says, respecting God that “His work is perfect.” In Psalm 8:5-8 we read, “You made him (man, Adam) a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor” (his mental, moral, and religious likeness to his Creator). In Eccl. 7:29 we read that “God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions, and become defiled.” In Luke 3:38 we are told that Adam “was the son of God.”

6. Evolution, both in its atheistic and Darwinian forms, flatly contradicts this Bible testimony. It denies that man originally was created in God’s image and likeness -- perfect in all his faculties, physical, mental, moral and religious. This denial, of course, brings with it the denial of man’s trial for life in a perfect condition, and his fall from that perfection into sin and death. How could evolutionists but deny these Biblical teachings since it is in absolute contradiction to their theory.

7. Denying man’s fall from perfection into sin and death, of necessity they must deny the Bible’s antidote for man’s fall--the ransom paid by the Lord Jesus Christ. They must also deny the effect of that ransom, i.e., Restitution, “which was spoken by all the holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:19-21). There can be no middle ground on this question and the sooner all decide positively in accord with the Scriptures, the better it will be for them for we “should let God be true, though it make every man (evolutionist) a liar” (Rom. 3:4)!

8. Instead of believing in a wonderful and reasonable plan that was in the mind of God from before man fell into sin, evolution speaks of a planless accident of nature. Darwin, later in his life said, “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries and suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took off like wildfire. People made a religion of them.” So this godless theory has overthrown the faith of millions, both in the Bible and in the God of the Bible.

9. There are many more arguments against this theory of evolution which space does not permit us to present here. Among these are the voice of mathematics, the estimated age of the earth, the distribution of plant and animal life, the unity of the human family, ancient civilizations, and the facts that lower species have not passed out of existence, nor do we see new species forming before us in some stage of evolving.

10. We feel that we should not close our discussion of this subject without a solemn indictment against it. It has had its vogue among the intelligentsia, though now many leaders of science reject it; but among the less educated and those who have left their learning to others, it has worked, and will continue to work, the direst of evils. It has demoralized our youth, who by it are made to believe in their superiority to their elders and their kinship to brutes; hence their growing disrespect for law and order in the home, state, society, and church; and their increased indulgence for their fallen carnal nature. From the thought of no God, no responsibility to law, no higher authority, no hereafter and of a brute descent, it becomes for youth but a natural step to disrespect of religion and government, disobedience toward parents, immorality, drunkenness, and a materialistic outlook on life. A generation of evolutionist professors and teachers has produced much of the moral, social and religious havoc that we behold in so many of our youth today. The pessimism and indulgence of brute instincts inculcated by evolutionists have in large part produced the moral collapse everywhere manifest in church and state and are contributing largely to world-wide anarchy prophesied in the Bible. But when that great time of trouble has brought mankind to their knees, they will see this and all evils for what they are, and gladly bury them everlastingly in Gehenna, where they belong.
Praise the Lord!

Alfred Russel Wallace, the noted scientist and co-discoverer with Darwin of the Evolution theory, finally declared that it is doubtful if there has been “any considerable improvement in man’s average intellectual and moral status during the whole period of human history;” and he added: “In comparing a savage with a civilized race, we must always remember that the amount of acquired and applied knowledge which we possess is no criterion of mental superiority on our side, or of inferiority on his. The average Zulu or Fijian may be very little lower mentally than the average Englishman; and it is, I think, quite certain that the average Briton, Saxon, Dane and Norseman of a thousand years ago, the ancestral stocks of the present English race, were mentally our equals. For what power has since been at work to

improve them? There has certainly been no special survival of the more intellectual and moral, but rather the reverse...When we consider further that the effects of education and the arts are not hereditary, we shall be forced to the conclusion that we are today, in all probability, mentally and morally inferior to our semi-barbaric ancestors!....The Romans and the Greeks looked down on their ancestors with just as much contempt as we look down on Kaffirs and Red Indians. It is quite superficial to conclude that because people are in a savage or barbarian state as regards knowledge and material civilization, they are necessarily inferior intellectually or morally. I am inclined to believe that an unbiased examination of the question would lead us to the conclusion that there is no good evidence of any difference in man’s average intellectual and moral status during the whole period of human history at all corresponding with differences in material civilization between civilized and savage races today...There is good reason to believe that some of the lowest savages today are the deteriorated remnants of more civilized peoples.”