FCP-16-EVOLUTION OF SPECIES.

EVOLUTION OF SPECIES.

Before I proceed let me, if I can, lift that cloud which today hangs over the eyes of so many and which shuts out the marvelous light, power, and wisdom revealed in all Creation. I refer to the theory called evolution, and by evolution I mean, the transmutation of species. This theory is based on the assumption that all life as we know it, developed over a very long period from minute animalcules.

Let me say right here, that if you are under the delusion that science has proved the transmutation of species, the fact is that neither science, individuals, nor any Society, has one atom of proof. Anyone who is prepared to investigate this for themselves can quickly prove that the whole ridiculous theory is built upon supposition. The Bible declares. ’This is the condemnation. that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.’ John 3:19. And again. ’Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.’ 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11.

Never were truer words written for almost without exception, mankind, through the ages and yet today, prefers to hear that which pleases him rather than that which teaches him.

Now. Concerning the transmutation of species. The evidence is completely fanciful, and whilst specimens which would serve as links, (were they only found in fossil form), are to be had in abundance, we do not have to go to fossils to find them.

Both in the vegetable and the animal kingdom, we have living members of every conceivable shape and composition. The fish with lungs live today, and if you want a fish with two legs, the axolotl is quite common. I recently had some in my ponds Newts and the like are plentiful, all with a tail and four legs, and for larger ones there is the alligator and the crocodile. Of course if you are not satisfied with these you can go to almost any natural pond and follow the whole process in the life of the frog. If you want evolution here is real evolution.

First an egg, then a fish with a long tail, next two front legs, then two back legs, then off comes the tail, and out hops the frog on the ground. Here, by the inherent law of the Creator we see, in a few weeks what the evolutionist claims requires millions of years. The truth is that no link of an intermediate stage has ever been found. Apart from the numerous array of designs of life existing today, it is quite evident there are many extinct designs, and from time to time, to this day, previously unknown species are washed up on the seafronts around the world. So if a million new fossil designs were discovered it would prove nothing in the way of connecting links. But it does prove that He who made the microscopic life and the giant whales was well able to make everything between, including the strong delusions.

How unfortunate for the evolutionist that the platypus has survived. Had only fragments of this creature been found in fossil form it could well have been used to boost the evolution theory more than anything else has done. But, alas, he lives as a living contradiction of all their theories.

It is not very well known, but it is very interesting to learn, that when this creature was discovered scientists in England refused to believe such a make-up possible, and even when a preserved specimen was sent over they still believed it to be a clever hoax. However they finally had to submit. but, as it just will not fit in the chain they have had to put it on one side, for he appears akin to skunk, rooster, beaver, mole, adder, monkey, fox, and duck. What a wonderful paradox God has preserved in this living witness to His Hand in Creation.

Perhaps the strongest apparent argument in favor of evolution is seen in geology. You may have seen for yourself an arrangement of fossils or charts to illustrate the evolution process. Millions are thus deceived but the fact is that this arrangement is simply the work of craftsmen, and is, to say the least, deceitful. Every geologist knows that nowhere in the whole world have ever been found fossils or bones in the order thus shown and described in their text books. On the contrary, they are (in all parts of the world) to be found hopelessly mixed up. This fact cannot be over emphasized for it is in itself the death knell of the evolutionist theory. It bears marvelous witness to the upheaval and deluge of Genesis 7:11, and possibly, even a previous upheaval. What is more, a general degeneracy can be traced down to our day both in the vegetable and the animal kingdom which is undoubtedly the result of the curse, (Genesis 3:17-18), to which the pests and diseases of today bear eloquent witness.

I would like to ask. If branches of the plants evolved into fish, fish into reptiles, reptiles into birds, birds into mammals, mammals into man how, when, and why did all this transformation suddenly stop and every trace of the supposed intermediate links completely disappear from the earth, for the present forms are to be found in abundance both in bones and fossils? All must acknowledge that today, all things in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, when left to themselves, bring forth AFTER THEIR KIND, exactly as was ordained by the Creator. Genesis 1. The fact that man is not found among the true fossils again confirms the truth of Genesis, which clearly shows man to be a distinct and later creation than both the animal and vegetable world. And there is something special about this crowning creation of God. Man became a ’living soul’. Genesis 2:7. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, bearing witness to the wonderful act of Creation, refers to Genesis 1:27 in Matthew 19:4-5 when He says to us, ’Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female?’

BASIS OF SO-CALLED APE-MAN.

First, let me say that the ignorance on the part of the public, and the deception on the part of a section of so-called scientists, against the background of truth and facts is appalling in the extreme.

Let us just briefly consider the basic facts of the most prominent of ape-men in the various museums. The NEBRASKA man. Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii.

He lived a million years ago it was said and a tremendous lot was written about him, his family, and in fact the whole race to which he belonged in North America. Pictures were published of both he and his mate, and one paleontologist Dr. Fairfield Osborn in an address before the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia April 27, 1927, placed him at the very bottom of the tree depicting the ancestry of man And when the missing parts were made up with plaster of Paris, and long hair, well, who could doubt evolution? And with that the man in the street is left. But upon what actually was this ape-man built? It was built upon one tooth, just one single tooth, which years later was proved beyond all question to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Found by! Yes! Harold Cook! The JAVA ape-man, Pithecanthropus Erectus.

It means upright ape-man. He is one of the most famous of all, and what is the true story behind him, this upright ape-man? In Central Java, over a period of a year, and over a wide area, were found the piece of a top of a skull, a fragment of thigh bone, and three molar teeth. Remember, all scattered among many other bones, great controversy followed among scientists; however, again hair and plaster of Paris filled in the gaps; and in due course Pithecanthropus Erectus was set up, his age, by the way, was 750,000 years.

Many years later, (1926), headlines again appeared.

Jungle speaks again!

’A man deeply marked with the brand of the ape has emerged at last from the silence of 250,000 years, and at last Pithecanthropus has a brother.’

Please read that line again; and it goes on, ’Perfect skull of prehistoric man’, and a brother for Pithecanthropus.’

It turned out to be the knee bone of an extinct elephant! The HEIDELBERG man, Homo Heidelbergensis.

Here we have deception of another kind. The actual find was a complete jawbone with teeth, somewhat larger than usual in the chin section, but definitely human. Most scientists rejected it, as of no value. Today exactly similar jaws can be seen in living men anywhere.

However, the man was built, named, and his age set at about 250,000 years. Thus we have here the case of a man presumed to be an interglacial man built on a human jawbone. The NEANDERTHAL man.

Here again we have a case of unbelievable deception. From the skull of what is now known to be human, was built one of the most famous of all the ape-men. First found in 1856 his replica is said to appear today no less than 300 times in museums around the world. The unusual characteristic of this skull is that the forehead runs back in a line with the bridge of the nose. Keep your eyes open and they appear anywhere today.

These are the chief examples of the evolutionist ape-men that are set up as the ancestors of the human race. The above examples are condensed from "Did man just happen?" by W. A. Criswell. The PILTDOWN skull.

Dug from a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England. 1911-1912. With its obvious human cranium and ape-like lower jaw, and estimated to be 500,000 years old, it was hailed as the greatest find to date and set the scientific world agog, deceiving the majority of them for 40 years, until it was proved to be a stupendous hoax in 1953. "Man and the vertebrates", Volume 2, page 225, by A. S. Romer. A staggering fact is that the 500,000 years old bones are now estimated to be around 50 years old. Surely this should serve as a caution to those so ready to accept any new supposed evidence of evolution. And Piltdown does not stand alone! The KEILOR skull.

Found near Melbourne, Australia, was first claimed to be 150,000 years old and now dated by the latest method its age is reduced to 8,500 years.

There is much confusion in setting a date for these ’ages.’ At one time the Glacial age was 155,000 assumed at 850,000 years, then at 200 000 and later authorities suggested 30,000, 10000 and down to 7,000 years. One suggestion is that the ’glacial maxima’ shows four successive extended periods, other estimates are of two periods. But there is little accord, and as glaciation is the ’time-table’ for the Pleistocene period, confusion reigns supreme! Read, for further information, ’Man and the vertebrates.’ Page 203, by A. S. Romer.

FOSSIL ORDER.

Douglas Dewar. Is Evolution proved? page 253, wrote, ’I am constrained to say that the fossil evidence has been so manipulated by evolutionists that the writings of the great majority of them do not give unbiased facts.’ But there have been many wild guesses regarding age.

Fossils of a fish with a kind of arms, regarded as a missing link, was claimed to be 50,000,000 years old and recently several living specimens have been found. The fact cannot be over emphasized, that fossil finds of both plant and animal, do not appear in the evolutionists’ text books, in the true order of strata in which they are found, for the simple reason the theory would be completely upset! They are thus arranged according to theory, instead of the age of strata.

Haeckel one of the supporters, if not one of the propagators, of the recapitulation theory admitted in 1909 at the Munchener Allgemeine Zeitung, ’I begin at once with the contrite confession that a small number of my embryo diagrams are really forgeries in Dr. Brass’s sense. I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized, and reconstructed.’

What an admission!

VESTIGIAL ORGANS.

Until recently much has been made by the evolutionist, of these supposed useless organs, or organs In process evolution in both animal and man.

Today however, with the great advance in the study of anatomy, no person of principle, having a knowledge of the facts would put forward this theory. It seems that our list of useless structures decreases, as our store of knowledge increases. The appendix is a good example.

Why does not the evolutionist advertise the fact that this organ is found in man, and the apes, and not in monkeys, yet in rabbits and possums.

Try and reconcile this!

Extracts from quotations of world authorities since about 1860 to the present time.

Prof. Einstein in The World as I See It wrote. ’The scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement, at the perfect harmony of natural law, which reveals intelligence of such superiority, that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.’

Prof. James Gray in his presidential address to Section D (Zoology) of the British Assoc. 1933, asks, ’Why should we accept the spontaneous origin of life? If considered as an observable phenomenon, in any other sphere of human thought, it would be discarded as a figment of a deranged brain. Is there any evidence of a dynamic (extremely complicated) machine coming into existence (spontaneously). The belief in the spontaneous origin of life is a negation of the very principles of Science.’

Loren C. Eisley, Anthropologist, Scientific American, flatly states. ’Ants have changed very little if at all. They are one of small immortals.’ In Harper’s Magazine, Nov. 1955, in an article entitled, ’Was Darwin right about the human brain?’ wherein he discusses this question with Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace, these facts emerge. ’Man’s brain from his creation has the same potential as now. Man’s brain capacity has not increased. Men of the Mesopotamian valley of 5000 years ago were as intelligent as our generation, although they did not have the accumulation of knowledge to draw upon.’

He further writes: ’Man and his rise now appear short in time. Explosively short! Whatever the forces involved in the production of the human brain, a long, slow competition of human groups would not result in such similar mental potentialities among all people everywhere. Something or some other factor has escaped our scientific attention.’

We add. Yes! Something has escaped attention. It is the fact that God created man.

Maurice Maeterlinck, Naturalist. The Life of the Ant.

’Ants are the most abundant in fossil of any animal, eleven thousand specimens have been examined and, in spite of millions of years, contrary to expectation, and a most disconcerting fact to the evolutionist. The most ancient are as we find them today, and thus were, as the Bible states, ’created.’

Since the atomic age has been ushered in we have come to understand that matter is not eternal. It is pent-up energy. It had a beginning and may be destroyed. In his book, ’Why we believe in creation and not evolution’, page 273, Meldau quotes Sir Ambrose Fleming as saying, ’Between space, absolutely empty space, and space filled with even the most rarefied matter, there is a gulf which no theory of Evolution has been able to pass or explain.’

Meldau goes on to say, ’Nothing cannot produce matter. (Atoms) Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3 give the only answer.

Between matter and motion there is a similar gulf. There is no greater attested fact of science, than the fact that it takes power to put inert matter into motion. No evolutionary theory we have ever heard of attempts to explain the origin of both matter and motion unless it concedes a prime cause. God.

Life cannot come into being except from previous life.

Irwin Schroedinger, Nobel Laureate in Physics, was quoted in an article, ’The greatest mystery of all the secret of life,’ by Waldemar Kaempffert, as saying, ’Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped, we know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life.’

Dr. Austin H. Clark, Biologist, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, said, ’There are no such things as missing links.

Missing links are misinterpretation.’ Noack, page 22. In Did Man Just Happen? Criswell, page 60, quotes Prof. Vircow who once wrote, ’The ape-man has no existence and the missing links are a phantom.’

Darwin himself wrote. ’The absence of transitional forms between the species, presses hardly on my theory.’

Again. ’Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; this is the most obvious and gravest objection urged against my theory.’ Origin of Species. Vol. 2, Chapt. 9, 6th edition.

Douglas Dewar, British naturalist, once ardent evolutionist, says: ’Paleontology (study of fossils) cannot be regarded other than a hostile witness against evolution, the earliest known fossils of each class and order are not half developed, but have all the essential characteristics of their class or order.’ In the book Is Evolution Proved? Dewar quoted Sir J. William Dawson, F.R.S. (Geologist), McGill University. Montreal, who once said. ’The Evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. That, in our day, a system destitute of even a shadow of proof, should be accepted as a philosophy, and this, in spite of our vast and weighty stores of knowledge, is surpassing strange.’

Dr. Herbert Nilsson, Prof. of Botany, University of Lund Sweden, after a life study of genetics and fossil record, says, ’As we look at the main groups of fossil flora, we find that at definite intervals they are, all at once and quite suddenly, there! In full bloom in all their manifold forms, any change is entirely lacking.’

He concludes. ’All my investigations have led to incredible contradictions, on account of which the theory of evolution ought to be entirely abandoned. It is a serious obstruction to biological research.’ And again. ’My attempts to demonstrate evolution by experiments carried out for over 40 years, have completely failed. The final results of my investigations and studies, always leads to incredible contradictions.’ Selections from Synthetische Artildung 1954.

Dr. Austin H. Clark, F.R.G.S., noted biologist of Smithsonian Institute, says. ’While man’s body structure is most like that of man-like apes, all the early remains of pre-historic man are distinctly those of man. No animals are known even from the earliest rocks, which cannot at once be assigned to their proper phylum or major group. If we accept the facts, the major groups from the very first bore the same relation to each other as they do at present.’ Meldau, page 316.

Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, admits, "Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has changed.’

Dr. Paul Francis Kerr, noted mineralogist, says. ’l cannot believe that the facts of science are mere accidents. What I have studied about the earth, has increased my belief in a Supreme Power, God must be. ’Only an infallible mind could have adjusted our world and its life, in its amazing intricacies.’ Meldau. Pg. 50.

Scientific American, July, 1954: ’Our earth turns on its axis once in 24 hours. Once a year we spin around the sun in an orbit of almost 600 million miles. The amazing accuracy with which the universe revolves as a perfect and flawless machine, can be seen in the perfection of our journey around the sun. It takes the earth 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 48 seconds; it has not varied one second in 1,000 years.’

Rear Admiral D.V. Gallery, U.S.N. Saturday Evening Post, wrote. ’The stars in their orbits and velocities through the heavens faithfully obey a great code of law. Earth’s scientists can quote and explain this code in great detail, until you ask. Whence came these laws?’ When we look at the marvels of this universe we can only but agree with the writer who said. ’It were as easy to believe that Milton’s Paradise were set up in all its stately march of balanced syllables by an ape, or that the letters composing it had been blown together by a whirlwind, as to believe that the visible universe about us, built upon mathematical laws, knitted together by a million correspondences, and crowded thick with marks of Purpose, is the work of mindless force.’ Dr. Fitchett.

Fred Kohler, well known ardent evolutionist, writes in Evolution and Human Destiny. Page 14. ’Life represents matter organized into systems of great complexity. How such orderly aggregates could develop In the first place, and continue in such complexity, is not easily explainable.’

Prof. L. Victor Cleveland, commenting on the inability of Science to produce life in the test tube, in his anti-evolution compendium, says, ’So far as all the scientists can prove, there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, life must come from antecedent life.’ And. ’Not a bacterium, nor algae, nor salpa worm, nor anything else ever evolved higher. Check the facts and see.’ The Living Sea. ’Most of the 12,000 kinds of fossil insects identified are similar to living species.’ Even Huxley, the hard boiled evolutionist admits. ’The only difference between the fossil and the animal of today is that one is older than the other.’

Charles T. Brues. ’Insects in Amber.’ Scientific American. ’Some 70 million years ago insects preserved in amber, are comparable with the picture they present today.’

H. Gracey, Evolution and the Honey Bee, says. ’In this little insect, we have a trap to catch and baffle the ablest men that ever tried to support the evolutionary theory. In the Honey Bee we have a highly endowed little creature with instincts that seem to rival reasoning powers more closely than the instincts of any other creature and yet, there is no door left open for the entrance, or the transmission of these wonderful peculiarities.’ The parents of the bee, the Queen and a Drone. have none of these instincts to transmit. The Honey Bee itself, which has no off-spring can transmit nothing.

Darwin’s theory is closed both ends. This is the hand of God.

’The evolution theory demands a world teeming with intermediate forms of life.’ Darwin. Which all must acknowledge would mean teeming hopeless monstrosities with half developed limbs, wings, bones, feathers, fins, need I add more? Yet all, even the most stubborn evolutionist will admit that the record of bones and fossil reveals not a single example.’

Darwin said, ’I imagine that probably all organic beings which ever lived on the earth, descended from some primitive form which was first called into life by the Creator.’ After its Kind. Nelson. Page 15.

Many evolutionists now believe and teach this. It is also being taught in many universities. But, while it is a big concession it must be rejected as it is directly opposed to the Genesis record, which is emphatic that all life was Created, in fixed species, to bring forth after their own kind. Genesis 1.

Byron C. Nelson. Th.M. After its Kind, 1961. Genesis 1:24 reads. ’God said, let the earth bring forth the living creatures after their kind.’ After its kind, repeated six times in Genesis 1 is a statement of a biological principle that no human observation has ever known to fail.’

Thomas Huxley, famous evolutionist, Critiques and Addresses. Page 182, admits. ’If we confine ourselves to positively ascertained facts, in the animal and vegetable kingdom, there has been little apparent change from their first appearance to the present time.’

Prof. James Park, Textbook of Geology, page 265. ’The obvious lesson from the study of fossils is the elementary truth that life even in the earliest times, differed in no way from life today. Further, we observe that the lower types of life that appear in the oldest rocks have persisted through all geological times up to the present day.’

Prof. Caullery, of the Chair of Evolution, University of Paris. Science 1938. ’The general fact, that paleontology shows us few transitional forms, and still fewer primitive forms, is very disturbing.’ The ’few forms’, of course, are fragments which even they disagree on.

Prof. Coulter, School Science Series. Page 16. ’Darwin’s explanation of organic evolution is now an inadequate explanation.’

Prof. Scott. The Theory of Evolution. Page 26. ’I have never been satisfied that Darwin’s explanation is the rightful one.’

Some fifty years ago the following authorities said.

Dr. Scott. Nature. ’A new generation has grown up that knows not Darwin.’

John Burroughs. Atlantic Monthly. ’Darwin has been shorn of his selection theories, as completely as Samson was shorn of his locks.’

Prof. Bateson. Nature, ’Darwin speaks no more with philosophical authority.’

Prof. Holmes. Science. ’The present theory of evolution is bankrupt.’ The same could be said today.

Byron C. Nelson in After its Kind, Pages 103-106. refers to Mendel’s law of heredity, or Principles of Genetics, now almost universally accepted, which has completely changed the old ideas of scientists in regard to heredity and evolution generally. He quotes the following. Bateson. Biologist, ’Darwin would never have written ’Origin of Species’ had he known Mendel’s Law, which also has gone far to destroy the faith of biologists in evolution itself.’ This was stressed by Prof. Caullery of the Chair of Evolution of Paris at Harvard University. Alfred A. Wallace, and Prof. Scott of Princeton University.

E. W. McBride, Prof. of Zoology, Imperial College of Sciences, England, says in effect. ’It has led evolutionists into a blind alley.’

Acquired Characters is a basic principle of the evolution theory, today it is universally rejected by scientists.

Prof. Lock. Variation, Heredity, and Evolution. Page 115, says of evolutionists, ’It is generally agreed among them that acquired characters are not inherited.’

Prof. Kellogg. Evolution the Way of Man. Page 97, writes, ’Unfortunately it does not seem to happen.’

Prof. Conklin. Heredity and Environment. Page 240, says, ’The inheritance of acquired characters is inconceivable.’

AFRICAN SKULL.

Some years ago a great stir was made over remains found in South Africa, claimed to be ape men, together with tools. Like most such finds, the reports were most misleading. It is now agreed that the tools had no connection with the bones which were found in a cave, while the tools were from a river bed, and it is generally agreed that all the bones were those of apes.

Prof. Edward Conklin. Reader’s Digest. ’The probability of life beginning from accident, is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory.’

Mr. Etheridge. Paleontologist. British Museum. Once said, ’There is not one iota of proof in this great Museum for the transmutation of species.’ Quoted in Did Man Just Happen? Page 18.

LeComte du Nouy. Human Destiny, admitted, ’Each group, order, or family seems to be born suddenly, when we discover them, they are already differentiated.’ Of birds, he says. ’They have all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation.’ May we ask why he finds this unsatisfactory?

Sir Arthur Keith said, ’Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special Creation.’ And Prof. D. M. Watson. London University, said, in effect, that this holds for evolutionists generally. Quoted, page 46, Did Man Just Happen?

Again Criswell quotes Prof. Branco, who says, ’Man appeared suddenly in the Quaternary period. Paleontology tells us nothing on the subject. It knows no ancestors of man.’ Page 60.

Eric Wassman. Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution, writes. ’The whole hypothetical pedigree of man is not supported by a single fossil genus of a single fossil species.’

Prof. William L. Strauss. Jr. Quarterly Review of Biology. ’Missing links are as conspicuous by their absence as they were one hundred years ago.’

Prof. Rendle Short said ’The further back we look for early man the more like us he appears to be.’ Quoted, page 61, Did Man Just Happen?

W.A. Criswell writes also, page 73, ’Dr. Rudolph Virchow, of Berlin University, once pleaded with his fellow scientists not to teach the theory of evolution as fact. ’Because it is insupportable and not capable of demonstration.’ At the Munich Congress, Virchow said in part. ’If generatio aequivoca, spontaneous generation, were capable of proof it would indeed be beautiful! But the proofs of it are still wanting. Those familiar with the failure to find support for the theory,’ he adds, ’will feel it doubly serious to demand that this discredited theory should be in any way accepted as the basis of all our views of life.’ Quoted from The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer. By John Gerard. Page 24.

J.R. Hand. Why I Accept the Genesis Record. Page 27. Prof. T.H. Morgan, Californian Institute, of Technology says. ’Within the period of human history we do not find a single instance of the transmutation of one species into another one.’

Charles Darwin asks, ’Why, if species descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not find everywhere innumerable transitionary forms?’

What would Darwin say today when research has defined over 3,000,000 species with not a single connecting link?

Prof. E.A. Hooton. Harvard University, said. ’The alleged restorations of ancient types of men, have little, if any, scientific value.’ Quoted, page 38 in, Why I Accept the Genesis Record. by J. R. Hand. The same author, page 46, ’Sir Arthur Keith, Royal College of Surgeons, former president of the Royal Anthropological Institute, has said. ’Embryology provides no support whatsoever for the evolution hypothesis.’

Dr. McNair Wilson. Editor Oxford Medical Publications, said, ’Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and, more and more, to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another, the essential basis of Darwinism. The classic aphorism, (when a mule breeds), ought to serve as a warning against the easy acceptance of a theory which is as full of ogres, mermaids, and centaurs as any fairy tale.’ Page 49.

Charles Darwin himself, in his later life, says, ’As by this, (his), theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of being as we see them, well defined species?’

Prof. H.H. Newman. Chicago University, said. ’Reluctant as he may be to admit it honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution’, page 56 of Why I Accept the Genesis Record, J. R. Hand. And in the same booklet, page 66, he quotes two authorities, Prof. Pfaff, University of Erlangen and Prof. William J. Tinkle, La Verne College. The first says, ’The most ancient man known to us is not essentially different from the man now living,’ and the second, ’Cro-Magnon man averaged six feet in height and had a cranial capacity 150 cc above that of modern man and, living at the same time were Neanderthal men with a cranial (brain) capacity equal to that of modern man.’

How could one be descended from the other?

Dr. Thomas Dwight. Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist. Page 20 says, ’The tyranny in the matter of evolution, (in scientific circles), is overwhelming, to a degree of which the outsider has no idea.’

Many scientists have voiced the same thing.

Sir Edward Poulton. F.R.S. Essays on Evolution, page 193. ’Although no one strove so nobly against such odds in its defense, Huxley was at no time a convinced believer in the theory which he protected.’

Almost three hundred years ago Sir Isaac Newton in Principia 2nd edition, recorded, ’This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.’

Charles Darwin. Origin of Species. 6th edition. Page 286, admits. ’If my theory be true vast periods must have swarmed with living creatures before the Cambrian period. ’Darwin’s day saw no evidence of these ’vast swarms’ of intermediate links, and he later admits, ’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, the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly used as a valid argument against the views here entertained.’ In Evolution of Plants, page 37, referring to the sudden unexplainable appearance of flowering plants, together with pollinating insects, wasps and bees. He calls it an ’abominable mystery.’

F.W. Noack. The Theory of Evolution in the Light of Scripture and Nature, quotes G.K. Hebbert, page 31. ’The evidence of the fossils very definitely favors creation, and not the evolution theory.’

Dr. D.H. Scott. M.A. LL.D. Evolution of Plants, page 42. ’The apparently sudden appearance of well-developed flowering plants is still perhaps the greatest difficulty in the record. They seem to burst forth in full panoply and without ancestors.’

Prof. Lejeune said, his chromosomal research had shown that ’Genetic differences between man and the apes were so great that the human species could not have evolved from some primeval chimpanzee or gorilla.’ The Advertiser. Adelaide. Feb. 18. 1978.

Prof. W.B. Scott. An Introduction to Geology. Page 288. 3rd edition. Volume 2, says, of the sudden appearance of the flora. ’With extreme suddenness the invasion swept the earth. There can be no question as to the facts of the completeness of the revolution of the flora.’

Prof. E. Perrier. Earth before History. Page 75. ’Again and again it has been proved that new flora and fauna have suddenly appeared in some geological stratum.’

Sir William Bateson. Science. ’When students of other sciences ask us what is currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give.’

Prof. R. Virchow writes in The New Materialism. Page 83. ’There has been a beginning of life, since geology points to epochs in the formation of the earth when life was impossible.’

F.W. Noack. The Theory of Evolution in the Light of Scripture and Nature. Page 30, quotes Prof. Fleischman of Erlangen, Zoologist, as saying, ’The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature, it is purely the product of the imagination.’

Sir Charles Bell. University College. London, has said. ’Everything declares the species to have its origin in a distinct creation.’