Did man get here by evolution or by creation (1967)

Download: PDF — Did man get here by evolution or by creation (1967)

DID MAN GET HERE BY EVOLUTION OR BY CREATION?

DID MAN GET HERE BY EVOLUTION OR BY CREATION?

IN almost all countries throughout the world the doctrine of evolution is taught. School textbooks on biology and history present evolution as established fact. Evolutionary teaching saturates science, philosophy, history and even religion today. Whenever the subject of the origin of life and man is discussed, it is almost always presented in evolutionary terms. But what do you personally know of the evidence for or against the belief in evolution? Does it really harmonize with the facts of science? We invite your careful examination of this matter, as it has a direct bearing on your life and your future.

THE PUBLISHERS

Copyright, 1967 by WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Publishers

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY

OF NEW YORK, INC.

INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION

Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.

Made in the United States of America

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1 Is Evolution an Established Fact? 5

2 Development of Evolutionary Theory 12

3 Does Life Come from Nonliving Matter? 23

4 What Does the Fossil Record Show? 41

5 Fundamental Law of All Living Things 50

6 Do Mutations Result in New Life Forms? 60

7 Heredity Keeps Family Kinds Separate 69

8 Are Apelike Men Our Ancestors? 78

9 How Old Is Man? 97

10 Living Testimony to a Creator 116

11 Why Do So Many Believe Evolution? 127

12 Who or What Was Responsible for Man's Wickedness? 131

13 Why Has Wickedness Been Permitted for So Long? 150

14 How Much Longer Will It Be? 160

15 A Marvelous Future 177

References 187

Is Evolution an Established Fact?

ARE you a descendant of an apelike beast that lived millions of years ago?

Sooner or later this question confronts almost everyone, especially students in the school systems of this world. The instructors and textbooks of these students teach that man did descend from the beasts by the process of evolution.

On the other hand, the Bible teaches that God created man, and all kinds of life, directly and not by a process of evolution. Has there been so much evidence for evolution that this Bible teaching is obsolete? Is evolution a fact? Does it hold the key to the future of mankind? And, too, does it really make any difference whether man evolved from the animals or not? Does it affect our lives?

ORGANIC EVOLUTION

Evolution, in the sense that it is applied to plants, animals and man is said to be the transforming of one kind of life into another kind. A writer in the Houston Post of August 23, 1964, defined it this way: "Evolution, in very simple terms, means that life progressed from one-celled organisms to its highest state, the human being, by means of a series of biological changes taking place over millions of years."

Another source, The River of Life, stated: "When living things came out of the sea to live on land, fins turned into legs, gills into lungs, scales into fur." And the 1966 World Book Encyclopedia said:

"The theory of organic evolution involves these three main ideas: (1) Living things change from generation to generation, producing descendants with new characteristics. (2) This process has been going on so long that it has produced all the groups and kinds of things now living, as well as others that lived long ago and have died out, or become extinct. (3) These different living things are related to each other."a

Mere change within a basic type of living thing is not to be regarded as evolution. That is simply variety, as we can observe among all plants, animals and man. For instance, there are various sizes, shapes and colors of cats, but such is only variety and in itself does not constitute organic evolution.

Regarding the period of time thought to be involved in the process, Professor T. Dobzhansky writes in his book Genetics and the Origin of Species that it "is surmised to be of the order of two billion [2,000,000,000] years . . . from causes which now continue to be in operation, and which therefore can be studied experimentally."4

Although some evolutionists believe that a Creator began the process, most today teach that life arose from inanimate matter without any divine assistance. Their feeling was expressed at the Chicago Darwinian centennial in 1959 by prominent evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley, who said that "evolution had no room for the supernatural. The earth and its inhabitants were not created, they evolved."5

IS EVOLUTION AN ESTABLISHED FACT?

ACCEPTED AS FACT

At the same conference Huxley told the 2,500 assembled delegates: "We all accept the fact of evolution. . . . The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact. It is the basis of all our thinking." The 1963 book Biology for You confirms this by saying: "All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact."

The majority of educators also accept evolution. One university president from the United States said:

"It takes an overwhelming prejudice to refuse to accept the facts, and anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting evolution must recognize it as an historical fact."8

Even many religious leaders hold this view. The Milwaukee Journal of March 5, 1966, reported that the "pastor of St. James Catholic church . . . made a firm statement accepting evolution. "There is no doubt about the fact of evolution," he said. The account related that the priest "underlined the word 'fact.'"19

The general acceptance of evolution can be noted in the account of an astronaut who performed experiments outside his orbiting spacecraft. An editorial in the New York Times of November 14, 1966, commented: "All the reflexes and instincts incorporated in his mind and body as the result of millions of years of organic evolution here on earth were severely tested by exposure to the weirdly different milieu of space."10

Thus today the vast majority of those who influence the thinking of people, in both noncommunist and Communist lands alike, accept evolution as a fact. And a fact, as Webster's Third New International Dictionary tells us, is "an actual 8 DID MAN GET HERE BY EVOLUTION OR BY CREATION?

happening in time or space," a "verified statement."11

IS IT A FACT?

However, when analyzing more deeply the comments of those who consider evolution an established fact, a truly amazing situation develops. It is one that the average person is probably not aware of, one that has few parallels in any other field of science.

Over a hundred years ago, in 1859, evolutionist Charles Darwin stated in chapter six of his book The Origin of Species: "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered."12 How much of a "fact" was evolution in Darwin's day if he was "staggered" by its difficulties?

Has more than a century of intensive investigation since Darwin's time clearly verified evolution as a "fact"? Science Year of 1966 reported: "Archaeology, despite its triumphs, remains almost at the beginning of the immense task of reconstructing mankind's history."13 A "beginning" certainly cannot be considered the same as an established "fact."

This paradox is heightened by the renowned evolutionist Professor Dobzhansky in his book The Biological Basis of Human Freedom. He first declares: "Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century." But then, just two pages later, he says: "There is no doubt that both the historical and the causal aspects of the evolutionary process are far from completely known.

. . . The causes which have brought about the development of the human species can be only dimly discerned." 14

On one hand evolution is declared to be a fact, but on the other it is acknowledged that the process is "far from completely known," the causes "only dimly discerned," the difficulties "staggering."

These are not isolated cases. The EncyclopEDIA Britannica stated: "We are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution... The evidence by now is overwhelming." But a few pages later it called that evidence "very imperfect and often interrupted by gaps." It added: "Of the vital processes which brought about these changes we are as yet ignorant."15

Famous evolutionist Sir Gavin de Beer, in his recent biography Charles Darwin, writes: "He [Darwin] predicted that the evidence would one day be forthcoming, and that day has arrived, for the series of fossils just mentioned provides the crucial evidence that man did evolve."10 Yet, in 1964, in the book The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution, written by another prominent evolutionist, W. Le Gros Clark, we read:

"The chances of finding the fossil remains of actual ancestors, or even representatives of the local geographical group which provided the actual ancestors, are so fantastically remote as not to be worth consideration."

"The interpretation of the paleontological evidence of hominid evolution which has been offered in the preceding chapters is a provisional interpretation. Because of the incompleteness of the evidence, it could hardly be otherwise."17

When Science magazine, in 1965, reviewed the book The Basis of Human Evolution, it stated: "The reader . . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions."18 And in the 1966 World Book Encyclopedia we read: "No one should make the mistake of saying that evolution is fully understood."19 Also, Science News Letter said in 1965: "The fight is among scientists over just how man did evolve, when he did so and what he looked like."20

Can any process be called a fact, "an actual happening," a "verified statement," when the knowledge of how, when, where, what and why is missing? If someone stated that it was a fact that a skyscraper evolved by itself from a brick on an empty lot, but that how, when, where and why it did so, and what it looked like in the process, were not known, would you consider the transformation a fact or just an assertion?

That the teaching of evolution cannot be called a scientific fact is shown in this statement by evolutionist Clark: "What was the ultimate origin of man? . . . Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural." 11

This is also acknowledged by a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Writing in Science magazine in support of evolution, he said:

"Come, now, if you will, on a speculative excursion into prehistory. Assume the era in which the species sapiens emerged from the genus Homo... hasten across the millenniums for which present information depends for the most part on conjecture and interpretation to the era of the first inscribed records, from which some facts may be gleaned."¹² [Italics ours]

The age of inscribed records began several thousand years ago. The evolutionary process that is thought to have preceded it is admittedly based on conjecture, interpretation, speculation and pyramiding hypotheses.

And of Darwin's famous book, The Origin of Species, British scientist L. M. Davies once said:

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as 'Let us assume,' or 'We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."23

The sincere inquirer cannot help but be struck by this situation. Evolutionists dogmatically assert that evolution is a fact, yet admit that all the important conclusions are conjectural!

Indeed, one scientist, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, a physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission, said: "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." He called it "a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."24 Another scientist, head of a college science department, J. W. Klotz, stated in 1965 that "acceptance of evolution is still based on a great deal of faith."25

To understand better how this conflicting situation came about, it is helpful to look at the background of the evolution theory. Let us consider the following questions: When did the modern ideas of evolution begin? How have they developed? What is the current status of the theory? Why is there so much confusion and contradiction among evolutionists themselves? And if we apply the truly scientific method of observing all the facts first and then drawing conclusions, what do they show?

Development of Evolutionary Theory

ALTHOUGH some ancient philosophers entertained what might be called evolutionary ideas, none of these gained any wide acceptance. Also, in the Middle Ages zoological writings contained recipes reputed to produce such things as flies, bees and even mice from nonliving matter. But it was not until the last two centuries that the theory of organic evolution gained any real prominence.

Among the first earlier theories to gain acceptance were those of the English naturalist Erasmus Darwin [grandfather of Charles Darwin], and French scientist Comte de Buffon, in the eighteenth century. They maintained that when a plant or an animal acquired a new characteristic from its environment, it could pass this on to its offspring, resulting in changes that accounted for evolution. For example, they contended that the thick armor-like skin in some animals developed because they received repeated blows. This characteristic, they claimed, was then passed on to their offspring, which were born with thicker skin.

In the early nineteenth century French scientist Jean de Lamarck published a book agreeing with the theory of acquired characteristics, but said it was the needs of organisms that gave the driving force to evolution.

According to his theory, giraffes got long necks because they ran out of vegetation and had to stretch their necks to obtain leaves higher up on trees. In this way, each generation passed on to its offspring a slightly longer neck.

How widespread was the belief in acquired characteristics in those days? In his book Charles Darwin evolutionist De Beer answers: "Nobody would have thought of doubting it till the close of the nineteenth century . . . The number of men before the nineteenth century who rejected the inheritance of acquired characters could be counted on the fingers of one hand."26

However, at the close of the nineteenth century German scientist August Weismann tried to establish a breed of talless mice by simply cutting off their tails before allowing them to mate. A 1966 textbook, Review Text in Biology, tells of the results:

"He repeated this procedure for 20 successive generations. The last generation proved to have tails as long as those of their ancestors. This was the first experimental proof that acquired characteristics, such as artificial taillessness, are not inherited. . . .

"Acquired characteristics are not inherited because environmental factors (which do not affect the genes in the sex cells) cannot influence the next generation."27

Nobel Prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller also said:

"Despite the strong influence of the environment in modifying the body as a whole, and even the protoplasm of its cells, the genes within the germ-cells of that body retain their original structure without specific alterations caused by the modification of the body, so that when the modified individual reproduces it transmits to its offspring genes unaffected by its own 'acquired characters.'"28

Although true scientific facts exploded completely the evolutionary theory of acquired characteristics, it did not die out completely. The 1960

Traits acquired during lifetime, such as artificially enlarged lips, not passed on to offspring

book The Mechanism of Evolution, by W. H. Dowdeswell, relates: "The last of the Lamarckist revivals took place in Russia in 1948 under the leadership of Lysenko, but the claims of his school are now discredited and appear to have been activated largely by ideological rather than scientific motives."[70] Later, Time magazine of February 12, 1965, reported that Lysenko was removed from his position and his theories rejected even by the Communists, noting that heredity "is controlled by genes in the reproductive cells and remains unchanged throughout an individual's life."[70]

The greatest impetus for evolution came with the writings of Charles Darwin, particularly in 1859 with the publishing of his book The Origin of Species. Darwin's theory was that members of different species competed with one another for life, and that in such struggle any advantageous variation would enable its possessor to gain the upper hand.

The fittest, therefore, would survive, the others would perish. The survivors would pass on the beneficial variations to their offspring, accounting eventually for the evolution of new forms of life. Darwin called this process "natural selection."

We might illustrate Darwin's belief with the giraffe. For an unknown reason some giraffes were born with slightly longer necks than others. The ones with longer necks won the competition for food, therefore survived ("natural selection") and passed on a slightly longer neck to their offspring. This was repeated for many generations, thus supposedly accounting for long-necked giraffes.

As time passed, however, objections to Darwin's position appeared. This is called to our attention in the 1964 textbook Biology for Today, by Clark and Mould:

"Scientists have raised a number of objections against complete acceptance of Darwin's theory, . . . 1. The theory does not account for all the known facts of heredity. For example, the theory does not clearly explain why some variations are inherited and others are not. Many variations are so trivial that they could not possibly aid an organism in its struggle for existence. 2. The theory does not explain how the gradual accumulation of trivial variations could result in the appearance of some of the more complex structures found in higher organisms."21

In the book The Story of Life evolutionist H. Mellersh notes:

"On the Darwinian theory, the questioner may point out, any variation has to be of immediate value to its possessor if it is going to give him a better chance of survival than his fellows. Of what 'survival value' is the first dim beginnings of an eye, or forelmbs starting to flap about feebly and nakedly in anticipation of a wing?

. . . Natural Selection is so mindless. It is so purposeless."32

Hence, Darwin's theory, as he presented it, was proved faulty and many aspects of it were rejected. The next major step in evolution came in 1901. Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries had been experimenting with plants known as evening primroses. He noticed that occasionally some appeared with unusual structures and that their offspring inherited these same traits. He called these mutants. De Vries believed that favorable large mutations accounted for evolution. For example, giraffes with unusually long necks, mutants, appeared and survived better than did short-necked giraffes. These mutants produced offspring with long necks, supposedly accounting for this bit of evolution.

This new theory did not remain unchallenged for long. Difficulties soon became apparent. Concerning the sudden large changes that De Vries claimed were responsible for evolution De Beer comments:

"Many of them had lethal results and killed the organisms that carried them, . . . far from conferring improvement in adaptation, the mutations seemed to be pathological, and provided no explanation of how adaptations arose and became perfected. The result . . . was that during the first twenty years of the twentieth century, evolutionary studies and theories were in a state of chaos and confusion."33

Summarizing these principal theories of evolution noted so far, Hall and Lesser's 1966 Review Text in Biology states:

"Since Lamarck's theory [acquired characteristics] has been proved false, it is only of historical interest. Darwin's theory [natural selection] does not satisfactorily explain the origin and inheritance of variations. . . De Vries' theory [large mutations] has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or set of mutations has ever been so large and numerous that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of offspring."34

Has this chaos of theories been cleared up in our day? What is the current theory accepted by most evolutionists? Has it proved more plausible? Is it more scientific?

MODERN THEORY

In recent years a new theory has been advanced, one that many evolutionists accept. This modern theory includes some of the views of Darwin and De Vries. Professor C. P. Martin of McGill University defines it by observing in American Scientist: "An overwhelming majority of [biologists] believe that evolution proceeds by mutations and natural selection."35

The modern theory says that a beneficial small mutation appeared in a particular organism. That mutation made its possessor better suited to survive than were its competitors. The beneficial small mutation was passed along by heredity through many generations. Over a period of millions of years other beneficial mutations continued to appear in the same line, causing the organism to change into a different one. Summing up the modern theory, the Oklahoma City Times of August 10, 1966, said: "Accidental alterations in the mechanism of his heredity slowly—by trial and error—made man better adapted to his environment than are his rivals. That's the accepted scientific view today, and scientists call this long, frequently bungling process 'evolution.'"1798 Also, since the modern theory includes part of Darwin's belief in "natural selection," it is often referred to as "neo-Darwinism."

To illustrate the modern theory we might again refer to the giraffe. In past ages the ancestors of modern giraffes were said to have short necks. As they struggled for existence the giraffes competed for leaves on trees. Some giraffes happened to be mutants that had slightly longer necks. These survived in greater numbers, as they could eat leaves higher up on trees. The short-necked giraffes died out, and those with the longer necks were left to produce offspring. These supposedly continued the process until the giraffe's neck reached its present length.

Many evolutionists claim that finally a theory has been devised that adequately explains things. As the world-famous biologist and evolutionist Jean Rostand stated: "For them, then, the problem of evolution has been thoroughly, completely, and definitely, re-

French scientists ask: "Can there live side by side two cousins, each of them fitter than the other, one because its neck is longer, the other because its neck is shorter?"

solved. With mutation and natural selection, the perfect explanation is at our disposal."37

At this point, though, we are confronted with the same amazing dilemma noted earlier, because the modern theory has not at all settled the matter. The controversy still rages! Information such as the following in Science Digest of January 1961 shows this. In an article entitled "Should We Burn Darwin?" the writer states:

"Perhaps the most significant single fact in last year's development of French scientific thought is that the above orthodox explanation of evolution has been badly shaken. Often criticized in the past, it has now come under such heavy fire that the way seems to be open, in France at least, to a new theory of the origin of species. . . .

"These are a few of the embarrassing questions asked today by the French rebels: If the giraffe with its eight-foot neck is the product of natural selection and an example of the survival of the fittest, what about the sheep with its neck no longer than a few inches? Aren't giraffes and sheep very close cousins, almost brethren in the animal kingdom . . . ? But then can there live side by side two cousins, each of them fitter than

If sheep evolved horns because they aided survival, why are there many hornless varieties of sheep that survive just as well without them?

the other, one because its neck is longer, the other because its neck is shorter?

"And talking of sheep, what about their horns? According to the classical school they started growing freakishly, and then, as they proved an asset in the sheep's struggle for life, nature went on selecting the horned animals and eliminating the hornless ones. But did it really? There are at least as many hornless sheep as those with horns. Which of them are fitter? . . .

"Out of 120,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs out of 120,000 were selected by nature because they were the fittest ones; or rather . . . that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?"²⁸

Another example of the attack being leveled against the modern theory is that made by the prominent evolutionist Jean Rostand. In his 1961 publication The Orion Book of Evolution Rostand says:

"Is it really certain, then, as the neo-Darwinists maintain, that the problem of evolution is . . . a settled matter . . . ? I, personally, do not think so, and, along with a good many others, I must insist on raising some banal objections to the doctrine of neo-Darwinism . . .

"The mutations which we know and which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of the pre-existing organs. In any case, they never produce anything really new or original in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for a new organ or the priming for a new function. . .

"No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these 'slips' of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding 'adaptations', . . . I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way; .

. . I discern nothing that gives me the right to conceive the profound structural alterations, the fantastic metamorphoses that we have to imagine in evolutionary history when we think of the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, from fish to batrachians, from batrachians to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals.[29]

After rejecting or questioning all the major theories, Rostand asks: "Will the future surprise us with a great new idea about the mechanism of evolution? We should certainly not exclude this hope, but it is difficult to restrain a certain scepticism." But then he concludes: "Despite this rather disillusioned conclusion, it is of paramount importance that no excuse be found to cast doubt upon the fact of evolution itself."10

But the honest investigator will do just that! After several centuries of conflicting theories, arguments and assertions, it must be obvious to the unprejudiced inquirer that evolution is not a fact at all, but is pure theory, and that it must be challenged to arrive at the truth.

HOW SCIENTIFIC?

There is another aspect of the matter that needs to be considered. It was noted in a December 3, 1966, Saturday Evening Post article supporting evolution:

"Among [evolutionists] leading the current research . . . feelings often run high when it comes to interpreting evidence. Criticism is sometimes regarded, and perhaps intended, as a deep personal insult.

"Not long ago a professor wrote an article questioning a former teacher, in the mildest possible terms, about the authenticity of a certain find—and ended a friendship of 30 years. On another occasion an eminent anthropologist arose to speak at a meeting given in his honor, and began reminiscing about the early days of his career when his ideas concerning human evolution had been ignored.

But he managed to complete only a few sentences of his talk. Then, overcome by the recollection of years of frustration, he lowered his head and burst into tears. Investigators have stalked out of meetings, indulged in personal vituperation, argued over priorities, accused colleagues of stealing their ideas.

"Such behavior . . . has been strikingly high among prehistorians. The reason for this occupational aliment is obscure, but it may have something to do with the shortage of solid evidence. . . sometimes the less excavators have to go on, the more ardently they stick to their guns."⁴¹

In trying to account for such strikingly peculiar, even juvenile, behavior on the part of evolutionary scientists, the article adds: "I can't account for it," says an anthropologist who has been in the thick of a number of fights, 'but there is something about exploring the past that affects you. It seems that every time a man finds a human bone he goes crazy on the spot.'"

All of this is positive evidence that the truly scientific method has not, and is not, being applied to the theories on evolution. The facts have not forced conclusions, but the preconceived conclusions of evolutionists have forced the facts.

The method correctly called scientific is that which analyzes all the facts available first, and then draws conclusions. This the unprejudiced investigator can do, for many proved scientific facts are at his disposal. These will allow each one to judge for himself on the basis of solid evidence alone and to draw honest conclusions, conclusions that are not based on ego, petty differences, a search for glory and advancement, or on preconceived notions. From such facts what conclusion can be drawn regarding the origin of life?

Does Life Come from Nonliving Matter?

EVOLUTION asserts that the first speck of life on earth arose by itself from inanimate matter. All matter on earth is composed of basic chemical elements. An element is a substance made up entirely of atoms of one single kind, and cannot be simplified or decomposed by ordinary chemical means.

Is there any trend toward evolution among the elements on earth? No, for atoms are generally found to be either stable or, in the case of some, in a decaying trend until they turn into an element that is stable.

This fact harmonizes with the scientific principle called "entropy." This essentially means that there is a tendency from the highly organized downward toward the less organized. Never is there an increase of order without an outside force. To illustrate: will the elements of earth, left to themselves, ever produce an automobile, or even a simple gear? To the contrary, the elements remain as they are. When they are fashioned into a machine by man, even the machine, when left to itself, begins to decay.

For another illustration take a large barrel and put into it bits of steel, glass, rubber and other materials. Turn the barrel thousands of times and open it.

Would you ever find that the materials by themselves had produced a complete automobile? All you would ever find is a mixture of the materials, no matter how often you tried the experiment. From this fact we can conclude a fundamental truth.

Inanimate matter on earth simply does not search out a way to improve itself, but tends toward the state of neutralization or stability. Nor will an appeal to immense periods of time help. Time produces decay, disintegration. It results in corroding metals, eroding cliffs. Time is destructive, not constructive. It is the enemy of evolution.

The principle of inertia also confirms this. Inertia is the tendency of all objects to stay still if still, or if moving, to go on moving in the same direction unless acted on by some outside force. A ball will not pick itself off the ground and throw itself to the catcher. A wagon will not move by itself unless acted upon by a superior force. Inanimate matter, devoid of motion, energy and life to begin with, would have stayed inanimate forever unless acted upon by a superior outside force that could give it direction and organization.

In the publication Discovery of May 1962 a review of R. Schubert-Soldern's book Mechanism and Vitalism stated:

"All molecules result from an electro-chemical tendency to neutralisation. They are therefore expressions of tendencies toward stability. Unhappily for materialists, however, life is characteristically unstable, and it is incredible that a complex of substances, all tending towards a state of stability, would produce the permanent chemical instability which is characteristic of animate matter." Thus it is inconceivable that an organic compound should ever be formed in the absence of life: 'No condition of inorganic matter is even thinkable in which carbon, oxygen and Wagon will not move by itself unless acted upon by outside force

Machine left to itself decays, as inanimate matter tends downward not upward

Time produces disintegration, eroding cliffs. It is destructive, not constructive

Ball will not pick itself up off the ground hydrogen could combine to form a sugar rather than water and carbon dioxide.'

So the facts reveal no upward evolving of the elements on earth, either into more complex elements or into organic compounds. But for evolution to have taken place, the inanimate elements would have had to evolve, and not just into another element or organic compound either, but into something far, far more complicated. They would have had to evolve into a living cell.

THE LIVING CELL

The gap between the inanimate elements of earth and a living cell is gigantic. In the finest laboratories the simple cell cannot be created from inanimate matter. Even if it could, that would prove that the elements need a directing force to produce a living substance.

We should not think of a single cell as being so simple that there would be no difficulty in its arising by itself from inanimate matter. Look magazine declared in its January 16, 1962, issue: "The cell is as complicated as New York City."48

The more carefully a single cell is studied, the more complex it is found to be. German biologist Von Bertalanffy said, as noted by evolutionist L. Elseley in his book The Immense Journey: "To grasp in detail the physico-chemical organization of the simplest cell is far beyond our capacity."44 Sir James Gray, professor of zoology from Cambridge University, concurs, in Science Today:

"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism."45

In the book The Ideas of Biology evolutionist J. T. Bonner observes: "The cell is really such an astoundingly clever unit that when we think of it from the point of view of evolution it seems easier to imagine a single cell evolving into complex animals and plants than it does to imagine a group of chemical substances evolving into a cell.

It is very likely that the first step was more difficult . . . The study of early evolution really amounts to educated guesswork."46

The science section of the New York Times of November 13, 1966, said of a plant cell:

"The largest single manufacturing process in the world takes place in one of the smallest units of life—cells of green plants.

"The manufacturing process is . . . photosynthesis. Each year this process accounts for the transformation of 100 billion tons of the inorganic element carbon into organic forms that support life.

"By contrast, all the big blast furnaces of the world make only a half-billion tons of steel in the same time."47

The complexity and productivity of these cells are not facts that support the conclusions of evolution. Since the complexity and productivity of a blast furnace are facts from which we conclude that it was designed by an intelligent mind, should not the same conclusion be drawn from the facts about a cell?

The neuron, or nerve cell, demonstrates how complicated a cell is. There are said to be at least 10,000,000,000 such cells in the brain of one person. At one time each neuron was thought to be like a simple relay or telephone switchboard. But further research has revealed that a neuron is far more complicated than a complex electronic computer. If scientists invented a self-programming computer of infinite complexity only onethousandth of an inch long, would this not be a

A computer did not evolve by itself from inanimate matter. Yet, a living cell is far more complicated than the most complex computer

monumental achievement? Would anyone listen very long to a claim that it came into existence by itself, that it evolved from inanimate matter without the direction of an intelligent mind?

When a cell is compared with a book, the facts reveal that the book is much less complicated and far, far easier to make. Yet, a book has to have an intelligent author and printer. It does not come into being by itself. Webster's unabridged dictionary took 757 editor-years to produce, not including the time of typists, photocopiers, clerical assistants, and the time of over two hundred consultants, to say nothing of the many men required to print and assemble it in the factory.[48] No one would ever contend that it all happened due to a chance coordination of ink molecules. It had to have intelligent direction. Since a cell is more complex, should not the same conclusion be drawn from the facts about it?

It was with good reason that Princeton University biology professor Edwin Conklin once said: "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."49

In this regard note what the well-known evolutionist and anthropologist Loren Eiseley says in his book The Immense Journey:

"Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, selfoperating chemical factory. The notion that he was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth.

"With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and

miracle

science found

itself in the

unenvi-

able position

of having to

create a mythology of its own: namely,

the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."10

A book does not result from a chance coordination of ink molecules or an accident in a printing factory, yet it is simple compared to a single living cell Such theorizing runs directly counter to the evidence showing that the inanimate elements of the earth do not of themselves evolve upward into living organisms.

Dr. Eiseley acknowledged this:

"One does occasionally observe, however, a tendency for the beginning zoological textbook to take the unwary reader by a hop, skip, and jump from the little steaming pond or the beneficent chemical crucible of the sea, into the lower world of life with such sureness and rapidity that it is easy to assume that there is no mystery about this matter at all, or, if there is, that it is a very little one.

"This attitude has indeed been sharply criticized by the distinguished British biologist Woodger, who remarked some years ago: 'Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition . . . It is simple dogmatism—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.'71

Of the living cell, evolutionist Rutherford Platt in the book The River of Life states: "So perfect is the original one-cell form of life, and so potent both for body building, for activating nerves and muscles, and for procreation, that the cell has never altered its basic size or nature from the beginning of life even to this day."52

Why not? Why has evolution not continued to improve upon it if it was a product of evolution? Was it just an accident that this infinitely complex mechanism was perfect to begin with? Since when has any man-made piece of machinery come into existence without years of improvement and perfecting? No man has been able to introduce a perfect machine that never needed improvement, not even the world's greatest genius.

Yet a cell is just such a mechanism. How scientific is it for evolution to conclude, without facts, that inanimate, unintelligent elements did what no human genius can do?

FROM WHERE DOES LIFE COME?

The theory of the evolution of a living cell from nonliving matter is really just a refined version of the older theory of spontaneous generation, which, step by step, was discredited by true scientific facts. Review Text in Biology tells about it:

"Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, was the first (about 1688) to carry out controlled experiments that disproved the belief that maggots arose from decaying fish, snakes, and meat. . . . Redi proved that maggots and files arise from living parents, not from dead matter.

Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest (about 1780), sealed numerous vegetable juices in glass flasks and then boiled them. After allowing these

Maggots in meat came from eggs deposited by flies. When jar cover kept flies out, no maggots appeared

materials to cool and stand for a number of days, Spallanzani could not observe any organisms. Even microscopic examination did not reveal them. Spallanzani concluded that nothing developed in the juices because boiling killed any living organisms that might have been present.

Consequently, there were no living organisms to give rise to new ones.

"Louis Pasteur, a French scientist (about 1860), conclusively demonstrated that microorganisms, which are present everywhere, get into organic matter, which serves as their food. After feeding and growing, the microorganisms reproduce and thereby give rise to many others like themselves. If flasks containing food are sealed and sterilized, . . . even after many months, no microorganisms appear."133

The origin of any life, however "simple," is really based on the scientific principle of biogenesis. Of this principle The Encyclopedia Americana says:

"From the Greek words bios, life, and genesis, birth, source, creation, is the biological term for the doctrine that living organisms are produced only by other living organisms. . . . biologists are now not only in virtually unanimous agreement that all life derives from preceding life, but that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same kind."04

This exactly fits the scientific facts, which demonstrate that inanimate matter by itself is never seen building up life of any kind. Only when life is already present is there possibility of new life. As the 1963 book Biology for You by B. B. Vance and D. F. Miller states: "All of the forms of plants and animals that we have studied in biology produce their young from their own bodies and in no other way."153

Those are the facts that science has actually proved. Yet note what evolutionist E. J. Gardner, a professor of zoology, stated in Organic Evolution and the Bible:

"A type of spontaneous generation may have taken place in the remote past (a billion years or

"Plants and animals . . . produce their young from their own bodies and in no other way." "All life derives from preceding life. . . the parent organism and its offspring are of the same kind."

more ago) from which the forms presently living on the earth may have descended. . . .

"The possibility of the appropriate elements, energy and suitable environment coming together by chance seems remote, indeed, but in tremendously long periods of time the 'impossible' becomes inevitable."50

How can such reasoning be regarded as scientific when it is contrary to known facts? It is not scientific at all, but is blind credulity.

UPWARD FROM THE CELL

Since the single cell was so satisfactory in the beginning, why would it evolve into more complex forms of life? Also, when we consider that single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba, are still with us today, unchanged, what would explain why some of them evolved upward while others did not?

If a single cell can be compared with an electronic computer, what of the complex life forms that contain thousands of millions of cells, all performing interrelated functions that no machine can duplicate? Under a picture of a complicated electronic device, Science Year of 1965 said:

"A spider appears to be one of nature's simpler creatures and a spider web seems to be a simple structure, wonderful in its symmetry. The fact is, that the spider and its web are far more complex than the machine above, with its tangle of wires and electronic 'brain' . . .

"In observing nature, scientists are confronted with the simple and the complex. And nothing appears to be more complex than life itself."57

Why would a simple form of life initiate a new organ, such as an eye? How could it know that an eye would be an improvement when it had never seen before? How could it know that sight was even possible? The eye is made up of many delicate, complicated connecting parts, such as the cornea, pupil, iris, retina, optic nerves, muscles and veins.

All of these would have had to evolve simultaneously or the eye would be of no use. A partial eye would be a serious disadvantage. Darwin admitted:

"To suppose that the eye with all its imitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."38

Darwin tried to explain that evolution produced the eye by many small transitional stages. Evolutionists today say it was by trial and error, and as one small transition proved advantageous it was passed along and built upon by later ones. But re-

If the eye evolved, its many intricate parts had to evolve simultaneously, to be of any use at all. But a camera, elementary by comparison, needed a designer and maker gardless of what kind of creature we examine, wherever there is an eye, it is complete, and not in a transitional stage of development.

The facts about living things produce a host of other difficulties. One-celled organisms such as the amoeba reproduce asexually, that is, by themselves. They divide in two and form in duplicate. If asexual reproduction was satisfactory, and it was, because such organisms are still with us today multiplying in exactly the same way, then why would sexual reproduction arise? How could male and female sex organs that perfectly complement each other arise gradually, paralleling each other, yet useless until completed?

If the mammary glands in females came about by slow evolution, how did these females feed their offspring in the meantime? If they already had another way to feed them, then why develop breasts? And if breasts were developed because they were a superior way of feeding, then why do we still have animals that feed otherwise and survive just as well?

The complexity of multi-celled organisms caused evolutionist G. S. Carter to say in his book Animal Evolution: "No one can look at the immensely complicated organisation of an insect or a vertebrate without doubting that our relatively simple theories can completely explain the origin of such complexity."259

WHAT IS MADE REQUIRES A MAKER

All of man's knowledge and experience demonstrate that the more complicated a mechanism is the more intelligent is its maker.

We even attribute very crude instruments to a maker. When we see an old Indian arrowhead in a museum, do we ever say, "It evolved"? Do we not acknowledge that it was made by someone?

Would anyone declare that a space satellite in orbit around the earth got there when a chance coordination of metal molecules formed a capsule on earth, which just happened to be connected to an evolved rocket and fuel tank, and that all of this just chanced to go into perfect orbit without any directing intelligence? We acknowledge a maker of it.

Would anyone claim that complicated mathe-

claim that complicated mathematical formulas evolved without the intelligence of the mathematician? Could they ever be attributed to a chance coordination of chalk molecules on a blackboard? Then what of the fantastic mathematical precision found in creation? A professor of mathematics from the University of Cambridge, P. Dirac, said in Scientific American of May 1963:

"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws

A rocket requires a maker, as does even a simple arrowhead. What of the most complex things of all—living organisms?

are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. . . One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathe m a tician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."60

That what is made requires a maker was interestingly demonstrated once by Sir Isaac Newton, the British scientist. Once he had a skillful mechanic make him a miniature replica of our solar system, with balls representing the planets geared to-

gather by cogs and belts so as to move in harmony when cranked. Later, Newton was visited by a scientist friend who did not believe in God. Their conversation is related in the Minnesota Technolog:

"One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, 'My! What an exquisite thing this is!

Who made it?' Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, 'Nobody!'

"Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, 'Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?' Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, 'You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.'

"Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the

How much of it evolved by itself? How much is the result of an intelligent maker?

great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion? "61

Newton convinced his friend that whatever is made requires a maker. If we but look about us in our daily lives, the same conclusion is forced upon us time and again.

When you are in your room, ask yourself, How much of it came about by evolution, and how much as the result of an intelligent maker? Did your desk evolve by itself or did it require a maker? What of your lamp, bed, chair, stove, table, rug, wall, or even the building itself? All these things required a maker! Even you had to have a mother and father! By what reasoning, then, can it be claimed that the most complex things of all, living things, did not require a maker?

The logical conclusion based on all the facts is that drawn by one research chemist who wrote:

"So highly intricate are the organic and biochemical processes functioning in the animal organism, that it is not surprising that malfunction and disease occasionally intervene. One is rather amazed that a mechanism of such intricacy could ever function properly at all. All this demands a planner and sustainer of infinite intelligence. . . . The simplest man-made mechanism requires a planner and a maker. How a mechanism ten thousand times more involved and intricate can be conceived of as self-constructed and self-developed is completely beyond me."42

While admitting the logic of such conclusions, many still maintain that evolution must have taken place, and they point to the fossils that have been found in the earth as proof of evolution. But are they proof in actuality?

What Does the Fossil Record Show?

F LIVING things evolved from one-celled organisms into higher forms of animal and plant life, then we would expect to see evidence of this in the fossil record. Surely some of those earliest forms left either their fossils, their imprints, or other evidences in the earth. What does the fossil record show?

Over a century ago the record disturbed even Charles Darwin. He wrote of this in his book The Origin of Species:

"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . .

"If the [evolution] theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. . . .

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. . . the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."⁶³ The Cambrian layer of earth mentioned by Darwin is said, by evolutionists, to be about 600,000,-000 years old.

In Darwin's day the fossil record of the pre-Cambrian layers was a blank. Now, after more than a hundred years of intensive investigation, what do the facts show? The New York Times of October 25, 1964, in an article supporting evolution, admits that that period is still a blank:

"The chief puzzle in the record of life's history on earth: the sudden appearance, some 600 million years ago, of most basic divisions of the plant and animal kingdoms. There is virtually no record of how these divisions came about. Thus the entire first part of evolutionary history is missing."[64]

The same admission is made by the book The World We Live In: "For at least three-quarters of the book of ages engraved in the earth's crust the pages are blank."65

Note also what Scientific American of August 1964 says:

"Both the sudden appearance and the remarkable composition of the animal life characteristic of Cambrian times are sometimes explained away or overlooked by biologists. Yet recent paleontological research has made the puzzle of this sudden proliferation of living organisms increasingly difficult for anyone to evade. . . .

"These animals were neither primitive nor generalized in anatomy: they were complex organisms that clearly belonged to the various distinct phyla, or major groups of animals, now classified as metazoan. In fact, they are now known to include representatives of nearly every major phylum that possessed skeletal structures capable of fossilization; . . .

"Yet before the Lower Cambrian there is scarcely a trace of them. The appearance of the Lower Cambrian fauna . . . can reasonably be called a 'sudden' event.

"One can no longer dismiss this event by assuming that all Pre-Cambrian rocks have been too greatly altered by time to allow the fossils ancestral to the Cambrian metazoans to be preserved. . . even if all the Pre-Cambrian ancestors of the Cambrian metazoans were similarly softbodied and therefore rarely preserved, far more abundant traces of their activities should have been found in the Pre-Cambrian strata than has proved to be the case. Neither can the general failure to find Pre-Cambrian animal fossils be charged to any lack of trying."60

These same conclusions are drawn in Natural History magazine of October 1959 in an article entitled "Darwin and the Fossil Record";

"From the beginning of the Cambrian up through the rest of the geological sequence, we have an abundant representation of animal life at every stage; even in Lower Cambrian formations, marine invertebrates are numerous and varied. Below this, there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms should be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,' said Darwin, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.' Nor can we today."

How is this fact explained away? The evolutionists who made this last admission stated: "The objection is based merely on negative evidence, which experience often shows to be worthless." In other words, although evolutionists find no pre-Cambrian fossils, the record being "three-quarters . . . blank," they contend that evolution took place anyway because the total lack of evidence is merely "negative evidence."

Such a conclusion is utterly unscientific. The scientific method of finding truth is to support conclusions with facts, and when they are lacking, to reject the conclusions. Further showing the determination of evolutionists to hold their conclusions despite a lack of supporting facts is a subtitle in this same article that says: "In the century since Darwin's controversial theory first appeared, paleontologists have established a solid foundation for evolution."768 But then the article goes on to show, as already noted, that the majority of the fossil record needed for the theory is completely devoid of facts and evidence!

Can this, except by sheer credulity, be called "a solid foundation" for the theory? What would you think if a builder told you he had built a solid foundation for a building, but, upon investigating, you found there was nothing at all, no concrete, no steel, no wood, no supporting material of any kind, just empty space where the strong foundation should have been? Would you consider such a void "a solid foundation" for a building because it was just "negative evidence"?

No, we cannot escape the scientific facts regarding this matter. The fossil record of the earth supports a sudden creation, not a slow evolution from primitive forms of life.

WHERE ARE THE LINKS?

About three-quarters of the evolutionary chain is missing. But what about the fossils that have been found? Do they provide the needed evidence for proving evolution? Does the fossil record supply the links at least in the last quarter of the evolutionary chain? Let us consider the facts.

Regarding so-called links, Charles Darwin stated:

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

"But, by by this [evolution] theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

"Geological research . . . does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required." 09

How did Darwin explain this lack of links? He declared: "I believe the answer lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed." 70 But then, in a later chapter, he says: "If we confine our attention to any one formation, it becomes much more difficult to understand why we do not therein find closely graduated varieties between the allied species." 71

…