AFTER ITS KIND
From the book by the same name (1958)
Chapter III
Wanted: A Greater Than Darwin
ON the basis of the foregoing "proofs" the evolutionist says that evolution is a fact. As to the satisfactory nature of those "proofs" the reader is asked to judge for himself.
While bearing in mind the questionableness of this fact of the past and present evolution of plants and animals, the reader is now invited to a consideration of the various attempts that have been made to explain how this supposed evolution has and does occur.
If, as is claimed, all present forms of plants and animals with their marvelous complexity of physical structure have developed out of a simple, primitive one-celled ancestor, something must have caused it. How a feather came to be, how a hand, how an eye, how a wing-—-these are things the creationist wants and has a right to know before he, as a sensible person, should be expected to give up his faith in the creation account of the first chapter of Genesis. What has caused the development which the evolutionist says has gone on? How did species arise? How did change and variation take place?
For over a hundred years evolutionists have been busy thinking up an answer to the above fair and very vital question. All the greatest minds among them have been bent to the task, for they have truthfully felt they could never expect evolution as a theory to satisfy thinking people better than the creation doctrine until a satisfactory answer to this question had been given. Merely to say it happened, but to be silent as to how it happened, that hands, eyes, wings, came into existence without a Creator, this in itself would be a confession of defeat.
In answer to this question several famous explanations have been given. For a time one or two of these explanations were considered satisfactory by many evolutionists. Later, however, they had to be abandoned and new explanations sought. Today, as the reader will see after the reasons are presented, no evolutionist has any explanation of the problem to offer which is able to satisfy even those eager to be satisfied. All any evolutionist can do at the present time is to sit back and hope that some one of his fellow evolutionists will soon think of something.
It is well worth while for the reader to know the attempts which have been made to explain how the continual evolutionary change that is supposed to have gone on has taken place. It will impress upon him the magnitude of the task which those who would establish the evolution theory in place of the doctrine of creation have before them, and will convince the creationist that he has the only possible explanation of the origin of the present world of plants and animals that clear thinking persons can accept.
THE ATTEMPTED EXPLANATION OF LAMARCK
The first attempt to explain the workings of the evolution process was made a hundred and fifty years ago by a French evolutionist named Lamarck. Observing the every-day fact that if a man uses his arm vigorously for a time, as a blacksmith does, the arm becomes larger, and if he does not use his arm, but sits physically idle in an office as does a clerk, his arm becomes smaller, Lamarck thought he had found a solution of the problem. He said.74 "The remote ancestors of present day forms were always being induced by the conditions in which they lived to use certain parts of their bodies more than others. Those parts that were used became larger. Those parts not used became smaller. The effects of the use or disuse of these parts were passed on to the offspring. They were slightly different from their parents. In turn the offspring themselves—were caused by conditions in their environment to use one part
74 This and the following are not exact quotations. They are intended merely to give the idea of what he said.
more and another part less. The results in them of this use or disuse of parts were still further passed on. Thus changes in the offspring, imparted to them by the varied use or disuse of parts by the parents, were steadily accumulated through the centuries, and by their accumulation living were continually undergoing a process of transformation.''
To make this explanation of a difficult problem clear, a few concrete examples had best be taken out of Lamarck's book. Taking the case of the giraffe with its long neck, Lamarck explains it in the following manner: remote ancestors of the giraffe had short necks like the horse or cow. Along came a drought and dried up all the vegetation on the ground. Leaves remained on the trees, however. For these leaves the short-necked ancestors reached and in doing so stretched their necks. Then they had offspring and the offspring showed in themselves the effects of their parents' stretching. The necks of the off-spring were imperceptibly longer than their parents. The offspring grew up. Along came another drought which dried up the grass on the ground but left the leaves on the trees. For these leaves the ancestors stretched their necks. When their young were born they showed, the effects of their parents' stretching. Their necks were still longer. And so on. By the steady accumulation through thousands of years of the effects upon the neck of stretching for leaves the present long neck of the giraffe came into being.
Another of Lamarck's illustrations was that of the long legged birds which love to stand in the water, for example; the flamingo. "How did that bird get such long legs?" we ask. Thus answered Lamarck: "Its ancestors had short legs, By continual effort throughout thousands of years to walk into the water and get food out of it without wetting its feathers the ancestors' short legs became logger and longer until they became what they are today.'? Of course, it is also assumed, as the legs grew longer the neck, was continually stretched so the bird could reach bottom with its mouth.
75 How they got their short necks is not explained
However ridiculous these explanations may seem to us, Lamarck must be admired for making the attempt, something that evolutionists today, though they talk loudly about the "fact" of evolution, do not seem inclined to do. Foolish as these explanations are, let us critically examine them in the, light of facts and, common sense.
We have a right to ask, "Why do not other animals besides giraffes have long necks, acquired in the same way? Did no other animals live in drought-ridden areas? Did they move out of drought-ridden areas to better pasture lands? If so, why did not the giraffe's ancestors move out also, which is what wild animals usually do in such cases? How did it happen that between droughts, when the feeding was good on the ground, the necks of the ancestors did not again begin to shrink? The giraffe today lives in the open plains and feeds upon grass. Why, if all was as simple as Lamarck supposed, has not the giraffe evolved back into a creature that can eat comfortably, without having to spread its legs?"
Concerning the flamingo the question arises. "If getting fish-dinners was so awkward for the dainty short-legged ancestors of that tall bird, how did it happen that they did not become tired of such disagreeable meals long before any appreciable length in their legs was arrived at? Or, if their craving for small fish could not be gotten rid of through evolution, why did the ancestors not become ducks, as other birds, according to the theory, must—have done, and learn to swim ?"
Creationists ought to thank Lamarck for calling attention to such definite problems as these, which are only a few of countless other difficulties. Supporters of the evolutionary theory do not like to face things of this sort directly. They prefer to talk in general terms. They are accustomed now to laugh at Lamarck's explanation, call his illustrations crude, and disclaim any responsibility for them. Nevertheless the long neck and long legs are there waiting to be explained satisfactorily on any other basis except creation, and the creationist should demand a satisfactory explanation before he believes in evolution.
Besides such difficulties as the above there is one other serious flaw in Lamarck's attempted explanation. In the discussion of his concrete cases nothing was said about his supposition that the stretching of the parent giraffe's neck would affect the offspring, making its neck slightly longer. In other words nothing was said about the assumption that changes of body in parents, however slight, are transmitted to their offspring—for example, that big muscles gained by a parent through exercise are passed on as bigger muscles to their children, or, that the neck-stretching of an ancestor giraffe would produce by inheritance a longer neck in its offspring. As a matter of fact these are false assumptions.
It is popularly believed that if a person were to have his nose pulled and fastened over to one side of his face throughout life, the child of that person would inherit a nose bent at least slightly to the same side. Actual observation, however, has never yet revealed any authentic proof of the inheritance of this or any other acquired character. Soldiers who have lost legs or arms in war do not have legless or armless children. Many cases of the inheritance of acquired characters have been reported, but careful investigation has always revealed an error somewhere. It was once reported, for example, that over in Rutenberg, Germany, a cat whose tail had been cut off had given birth to a litter of bobtailed young. Here was a definite example of the inheritance of a mutilation. But further investigation revealed that the father was a bob-tailed Manx cat.
By actual observation we know that a blacksmith may by use get a big arm. But his son will have to develop his own muscle or he will not have it. Parents may learn ten languages, but their children will have to begin with the A B C or be ignorant.
If acquired characters were inherited there are many cases where the fact would have had an excellent chance to establish itself. It is well-known that the old Chinese bound the feet of their female children for many generations. Yet the feet of Chinese women, if permitted to grow, were perfectly normal. The Jews have been circumcizing their boys for 4,000 years with no effect discernible in the modern Jewish offspring. How acquired characters are not inherited is well illustrated in the fact that cutting the hair for many generations has not made barbershops a whit less necessary.
It was an evolutionist, Weismann, who was advocating Darwin's theory against Lamarck's, who gave the deathblow to Lamarck's explanation. Weismann appealed to his fellow evolutionists common sense. He pointed out how for many generations the tails of certain breeds of sheep and the combs of fighting cocks have been cut off with no effect upon the tails and combs of the sheep and cocks which descended from them. He himself cut off the tails of mice for nineteen generations and then gave it up. The tails of the last were as long as the first.
Weismann, however, performed a greater service to true science and to the cause of the Bible than merely cutting off the tails of mice. Convinced by experiment that acquired characters are not inherited, he began a study of living organisms which resulted in an important and vital discovery. He learned that there are, two kinds of cells that go to make up the mass of any individual (1) body cells, and (2) germ cells. He noticed further that very early in the development of the embryo, even as early as the eight- and sixteen-cell stages in some animals, when the creature is the size of a pin-head, the germ cells are set aside. Set aside, they never change. They retain all through life the original character of the egg-cell; and they go to make up the reproductive cells of the adult. Out of these germ cells come all future generations. Weismann observed, however, that the body cells, which go to make up the eyes, hands, feet, change their character. He also observed that the germ cells are totally independent of the body cells and are not affected by changes in the body. The cutting off of a finger has no effect whatever on the germ cells out of which the next generation comes. As a result of Weismann's work, men have learned that the direct line of descent from generation to generation is not a descent from adult to adult but from germ cell to germ cell. As the Bible indicates, life is in the "seed" and the seed does not change.
The physiological explanation by Weismann of the fact of the non-inheritance of acquired characters is today universally accepted. It explains why a crooked nose, or a shaved head, or a cut-off leg does not and cannot result in crooked-nosed and bald-headed and one-legged children. It shows why evolution could not have come about in the fashion Lamarck imagined.
Inheritance of acquired characters is absolutely vital to Lamarck's explanation of the how of evolution. In fact, Herbert Spencer, one of the most prominent exponents of evolution in the nineteenth century, said, "Either there has been inheritance of acquired characters, or there has been no evolution."76 According to prominent evolutionists themselves, then, there has been no evolution, for, as Prof. Lock of Cambridge University said, "It is generally agreed among them that acquired characters are not inherited." 77. Speaking of the inheritance of acquired characters, Prof. Kellogg of Stanford University said it "unfortunately does not seem to happen." 78 Prof. Conklin of Princeton University went so far as to say that "The inheritance of acquired characters is inconceivable." 79
Considerably before the present day Lamarck's courageous attempt to solve the problem began to be abandoned. Charles Darwin, who had an explanation of his own to offer, said, in the middle of the last century, "Heaven forfend me from Lamarck's nonsense," 80 and his coworker Wallace added, "The hypothesis of Lamarck has been repeatedly and easily refuted." 81 At present the abandonment of Lamarck's explanation is practically complete. Prof. Morgan of Columbia University wrote, "Today the theory has few followers among trained investigators, though it still has a popular vogue that is wide and vociferous." 82 Prof. Kellogg said "The plausible and fascinating explanation of Lamarck, based on the assumed inheritance by offspring of changes acquired by the parents during the development and lifetime is found to be insecurely based. Acquired characters, in the Lamarckian sense, are not inherited. Hence, new species do not come that way." 83
76 The Contemporary Review, March, 1893.
77 Variation, Heredity, and Evolution, page 115.
78 Evolution the Way of Man, page 97.
79 Heredity and Environment, page 240.
80 Quoted from Lock, Variation, Heredity, and Evolution, page 115.
81 Ibid., page 115.
82 Critique of the Theory of Evolution, page 25.
THE ATTEMPTED EXPLANATION OF DARWIN
The second endeavor to supply the dire need of a satisfactory explanation of the non-miraculous origin of the vast hosts of living organisms from a single speck of protoplasm was made by Charles Darwin and offered to the world in the Origin of Species.
This famous but now abandoned explanation had as its basis in nature two facts: (1) the variations among living things and (2) the struggle for existence.
Darwin noticed that not all offspring of a given parent are alike. They vary, though it be but slightly in size, shape, and color. If one should examine carefully each one of the thousands of fish that are spawned each year by a single set of parents, it would be found that no two are exactly alike in every respect. Darwin further noticed that there is going on continually among all living things, man included, a terrible struggle for existence. Among the millions of fish that are born each year in the streams and lakes of the world only a few, comparatively, ever reach maturity. In one way or another they are lost during the struggle. What is true in the fish world is true in every sphere of life.
On the basis of the above facts in nature Darwin offered the following theory as to the origin of species. "From the beginning of life upon the earth the struggle for existence has been going on. In the midst of that struggle, accidental variation has always been taking place. No two forms have ever been exactly alike. Some of the differences have been bad or a handicap in the warfare of nature. Others have been good or advantageous in that struggle Consequently, there was always a tendency on the part of nature to destroy the bad variations and preserve the good. It was this continual selection on nature's part of different forms that brought about the changes which produced the present animal and plant life."
In order to see how natural selection was supposed to
83 World's Work, March, 1926.
work in actual practice, an illustration may be taken. The giraffe will again suffice. The problem for the evolutionist to solve is. "How did the long neck of the giraffe come into being ?" 84 Granting the existence of a neck to start with, this would be the Darwinian explanation: "The ancient ancestors of the giraffe were short-necked. A severe drought arose in the land where they lived. This brought on a struggle for existence. The vegetation on the ground dried up. Leaves only remained to be eaten and they were on the trees. To get them they had to be reached after. The giraffe's ancient ancestors reached after them. When the lower leaves were gone only the upper remained. But not all those ancestors were alike. Some had slightly longer necks, and those that had them lived, while the others died. The drought passed. Presently another came along. Again the vegetation died upon the ground and finally leaves remained only on the higher branches, These only the longest-necked ancestors could reach. They did, however, and lived, while their less fortunate brothers and sisters perished. Again and again the drought appeared, for how many centuries, no one knows. It all happened, however, so as to accomplish the result of producing a neck in the giraffe species as much as six feet long."
Charles Danwin threw stones at Lamarck, saying, "Heaven forfend me from Lamarck's nonsense." It is an old adage that those who live in glass houses should not do such things. Surety Danwin's speculation is as laughable as Lamarck's.
"Natural selection" or "the survival of the fittest" made a great stir among those eager to get away from the philosophy of existence embodied in the doctrine of special creation. So great was the stir that the terms "evolution" and "Darwinism" came to be used synonymously. The enthusiasm that was engendered by it, however, did not last, and gradually this speculation also began to be abandoned. Today it is not accepted as satisfactory by any evolutionist of prominence in the world.
84 The reader will readily be able to call to mind organs far more difficult to account for than the giraffe's neck, e.g., the heart, lungs, eyes, etc
Opponents of Darwinism have enumerated many objections, to this once widely accepted theory. 85 It will be critically examined here from two points of view, from either of which its untenableness will be seen:
(a) Darwin's theory begs the question entirely. It assumes that which is expected to be shown, namely, how new species, new parts and organs of plants and animals came into existence. Evolution means producing new things, not only new in individuals, but eyes, wings, fingers, beaks. Danwin's theory, however, merely assumes that these things were in existence and the better of them selected for survival and the poorer for extinction. For example, if two apples are on a plate, a man can select one and eat it. In so doing he leaves the other apple. This selection, however, does not explain how either apple came to be in existence. They were there before the man started to eat. Similarly, two evolving creatures may have been in existence long ago, one having parts of the body which made it more fit to survive than the other. Nature selected the more fit to survive and the less fit to perish, as Darwin said. But we have not yet had explained to us by Darwin how those parts of the body came to be. This is what we want to know. The views of a few keen-thinking men on this destructive weakness in Danvin's theory may be noted. Prof. Lock of Cambridge University says. ''Selection, whether natural or artificial, can have no power in creating anything new." 86 Hugo de Vries said. "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 87 Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, and a student of evolutionary problems, said, "Natural selection does not and cannot produce new species and varieties. On the contrary its sole function is to prevent evolution." 88 Prof. Coulter of the University of Chicago says, "The most fundamental objection to the theory of natural selection is
85 For a full enumeration of the impossibilities of Darwinism the reader is directed to the book of C. C. Coe, Nature versus Natural Selection.
86 Variation and Heredity, page 40.
87 Species and Varieties, pages 825-6.
88 World's Work, Dec. 1913, page 177.
that it cannot originate characters; it only selects among characters already existing." 89
(b) Darwin said, "Natural selection acts only by the preservation and, accumulation of small inherited modifications." 90 "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." 91 On Darwin's own basis, therefore, if it is possible to call to mind any structure of any creature which could not be imagined to have come into existence slowly and gradually through thousands or millions of years by the accumulation of tiny changes, Darwin's theory would have to be abandoned by any im-predudiced person. Such structures are numerous, and a brief list of them will now be presented. Among them are some that would need to have been possessed in perfection from the very start or the possessors of them would have perished. To have possessed them in a third or a half developed condition would have resulted in the complete extinction of the evolving individuals.
1. The wings of bats and birds. The theory of evolution supposes that all the creatures which fly, such as bats and birds, are the result of an evolution of animals that once ran upon the ground. Birds are said to be an evolution from the reptiles. Bats are said to be an evolution from some mammalian forms of the type of the mouse. The wings of, bats and the wings of birds are said to be the results of the evolution of the front feet of ancient ground-running reptilian or mammalian creatures. The Darwinian explanation of how this came about is that front feet changed slowly and gradually into wings in both birds and bats, because each modification wing-ward was helping in the struggle for existence. It may well be asked, however, if the contrary was not the exact case. When the change was slowly taking place during the thousands of years that it must have taken, and the wings were only half made, how did the evolving creature manage—to survive? As the toes of the bat were slowly lengthening—
89 Fundamentals of Plant Breeding, page 34.
90 Origin of Species, 5th ed., page 110.
91 Ibid., page 277.
and a thin membrane was being stretched between them, and the process was a third, or a half, or two-thirds complete, at which stages the creatures had neither feet for running nor wings for flying, but were left to flounder about in a helpless fashion, can it be conceived that they were enabled to survive in the terrible struggle for existence
Fig. 27. Imaginary course of evolution of the bat. The Darwinian theory of evolution is that the bat has evolved through a period of several millions of years by slow, imperceptible changes from the mouse or some other ground-running creature. It must, therefore, have passed through millions of intermediate stages. It is inconceivable that the evolving creatures could have lived while in any of the intermediate stages numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, for the fore-limbs were then neither feet to run with, nor wings to fly with, but useless appendages which would have made it impossible for the possessors of them either to procure food or to escape from the thousands of enemies which surrounded them. The above applies with equal force to birds, whose wings, theoretically, evolved from the front feet of reptiles.
which Darwin accepted as a fact? The answer is negative. Rather would the entire species have perished long before the wings had become complete. 92 There is no
92 It is noteworthy that no fossils of creatures representing this vast gradual change from four-footed animals to winged creatures are found anywhere in the fossiliferous deposits. The immense numbers of necessary intermediate forms are conspicuous for their absence.
satisfactory explanation of the origin of wings except that of special creation. Reason agrees that "God created-— every winged fowl" and did so "after its kind." 93
2. The spinnerettes of spiders. In the rear body-part of spiders is a group of specialized organs which the insect uses to make the gossamer web on which its very existence depends. The structure of the organs is truly marvelous. Inside the body are numerous cavities or glands which are full of liquid silk. The glands are like bulbs which can be pressed by the surrounding muscles and the liquid silk squeezed out. When expelled, the liquid passes out through hundreds of exceedingly tiny holes. Coming into contact with the air the liquid dries and threads microscopically thin are produced. These threads are then seized by several hundreds of spool-like organs and spun into a silk cord as fine and delicate or as thick and strong as is required. With the cord thus produced the spider makes his web and with it catches his prey. Of what conceivable value, however, could such a set of marvelous organs be in the struggle for existence in the initial stages of their development? Until they were complete enough to produce the delicate web they could only have been a dangerous nuisance to the possessor. On the basis of special creation. however, no difficulty is offered to a reasoning mind.
3. Mammary glands. There is a group of animals classed by students of biology as "mammals" because of the presence in them of mammary glands or breasts by which the infant offspring in the early part of their young lives are fed with milk. Upon these glands the young of all mammals are utterly dependent for their existence. However, upon the Darwinian basis that these organs came into existence slowly through almost countless years by the accumulation of tiny changes in animal organisms. One may well wonder how the new born offspring managed to live during those times. If the delicate offspring lived on other food besides milk, which is difficult to imagine, what caused the mammary glands to develop? If the glands developed because the offspring sought for food in the region of the mother's breast, how did the offspring survive
93 Gen. 1:21
before food was to be had.? Problems such as these are not answered by any theory of a survival of the fittest in a struggle for existence. They are answered by the theory of creation.
4. Reproductive organs. Living things are generally divided into two sexes, male, and female. In both sexes, whether plants or animals, the reproductive structures are perfect complements of one another. It may be asked: How on the basis of a gradual evolution, was reproduction able to take place while as yet these complementary sexual structures were a third or a half made? The egg-cells within the females of bi-sexual plants and animals have in them certain forms which call for similar forms in the sperm-cells of males of the same kind. Again it may be asked: How on the basis of a slow evolution of these egg and sperm-cells was reproduction ever enabled to take place when the evolution was only a third or a half complete?
5. Instinct. It is the instinct of every newly born offspring of mammalian parents to suck as soon as it is born. In no mammalian species is that instinct lacking. It need not, nor can it, be taught. The offspring sucks naturally, otherwise it would perish and the species cease to exist. On the basis of evolution by slow and gradual change it is impossible to see how mammalian species did exist, for with the sucking instinct only partially developed the offspring must promptly have perished. The instinct must have been put into those animals possessing them fully made by a Creator.
To all clear-thinking men and women there can be no satisfactory explanation of the origin of wings, reproductive organs, instincts, and a thousand other physical—and psychical structures except that they were given to creatures fully made in the beginning.
Darwinism, once considered so satisfactory an explanation of the origin of all the physical structures which plants and animals possess, is no longer accepted by the vast majority of evolutionists. Besides those considerations presented here numerous others have led to its rejection. That it is rejected today is apparent from the following quotations by prominent evolutionists:
"Darwin's explanation of organic evolution is now held to be an inadequate explanation." 94 "I have never been satisfied that Darwin's explanation is the rightful one." 95 "A new generation has grown up that knows not Darwin." 96 "He [Darwin] has been shorn of his selection theories as completely as Samson was shorn of his locks." 97 "Darwin speaks no more with philosophical authority." 98 "Similarly, the more widely accepted and apparently vigorously logical explanation of Darwin, based on the assumption of a life or death determining value of actually occurring many small variations in the struggle for existence, is also seen to be more logical than real." 99
But though Darwinism, or natural selection, has had to be abandoned as a satisfactory explanation of evolution, it must not be denied that natural selection has played and does still play a large part in adjusting natural species already existing to the physical world. The earth has undergone marked changes since species were first created, and species have had to adapt themselves to new environments. In His wisdom the Creator made ample provision for species to adapt themselves to these changed conditions. He provided species with a great capacity to vary, and thus offered the material which nature might select and fit into these changed conditions, except where the changed environment required a power of variation greater than that with which the species were endowed. But, however much selecting nature may have done in the past, its selecting has never been able to originate anything. Natural selection can be only a mechanism for the elimination of what already exists.
94 Prof. Coulter of the University of Chicago in School Science Series, page 16.
95 Prof. Scott of the University of Princeton in The Theory of
Evolution, page 25.
96 Dr. Scott, President of the Botany Section of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science, in Nature, Sept. 29, 1921.
97 John Burroughs, famous naturalist, in the Atlantic Monthly, August, 1920.
98 Prof. Bateson, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in Nature, August 20, 1914.
99 Vernon Kellogg in World's Work, March, 1926.
THE ATTEMPTED EXPLANATION OF DE VRIES
The last great speculation as to the cause of evolution was offered about the year 1900 by Hugo de Vries. According to the two previous attempts evolution was said to have come about very gradually, by little, infinitely minute additions, so slowly and gradually as to be un-noticeable. In the attempt to be considered now we have something entirely new and different.
De Vries was a botanist. While experimenting in his garden with a plant called Oenothera (primrose) he found that from it came forms such as he had never seen before. These he called "new species." They appeared unexpectedly among the offspring. As a result he offered the following explanation of how living things evolved. "New species" he said, "rose suddenly, spontaneously, by steps, by jumps. They jumped out among the offspring." His speculation was called, therefore, the "mutation" theory.
This theory, while it aroused great hopes among evolutionists for a few years, soon went the way of its fellows, when it was learned that the "new" species of plants which de Vries thought he had seen produced in his garden were discovered to be but one of the many varieties of forms which the Oenothera is privileged by the Creator to have. In an address at Toronto to the assembled scientists of America, Prof. William Bateson said, "Twenty years ago de Vries made what looked like a promising attempt to supply this (evidence of new species appearing among natural offspring) as far as Oenothera is concerned . . . but in application to that phenomenon the theory of mutation falls. We see novel forms appearing, but they are no new species of Oenothera. For that which comes out is no new creation." 100
The abandonment of the speculation of de Vries as to the how of evolution was acknowledged by Prof. Jeffrey of Harvard Umversity in the following words, "The mutation theory of de Vries may now be relegated to the limbo of discarded hypotheses." 101 (Appendix II.)
Today no evolutionist has anything to offer to account
100 Science, Jan. 20, 1922.
101 Science, April 3, 1914.
for the evolutionary process which is said to have taken place. "When students of other sciences" said Bateson, "ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given place to agnosticism" and "That essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin of species remains utterly mysterious," and "We cannot here and now explain how species arose." 102 "Old explanations of evolution do not explain it" acknowledged Prof. Kellogg.103 "These things are an illustration of the bankruptcy of the present theory of evolution" wrote Prof. Holmes of the University of California.104
One wonders how long the evolution theory is going to last without that essential bit of the theory which tells how and why such marvelous things as a butterfly, a trout, a robin, a lamb, a man were produced purely by forces of nature working naturally, such marvelous things as the Christian believes required supernatural power and wisdom, definite creative acts, for their production. The theory of evolution is at present lacking an explanation of how organs and species were produced. Unless someone comes soon to its rescue how long can the theory hold? Meanwhile, it is being held by evolutionists, in the words of Bateson, as an act of faith, while they wait for another greater than Lamarck, or Darwin, or de Vries. The difficulties to be faced in old problems and in new problems are so great that the final question will have to be not "how did it happen," but "did it ever happen at all."
SUMMARY
The theory of evolution should not be accepted in place of the doctrine of creation until evolutionists have answered the question, "How were forms produced by the operation of purely natural laws?"
Lamarck's explanation of how present forms evolved non-miraculously is not acceptable, and is not accepted by
102 Science, Jan., 1922.
103 World's Work, March, 1926
104 Science, Sept. 3, 1915.
evolutionists today. The chief reason is that acquired characters are not inherited.
Darwin's explanation is not acceptable, and is not accepted today by evolutionists as a complete explanation because (1) selection can only take away. It cannot produce. (2) There are many organs of living things which would have been not only not a help to an evolving creature, but would have been a destructive hindrance in the great struggle for existence if possessed in an imperfect state.
De Vries' explanation is not acceptable, and is not accepted by evolutionists today because what de Vries thought were new species were found to be nothing but unknown varieties within old species.
Evolutionists today have no explanation of how living forms evolved.
……………….
IN CANADA AT LEAST [PROBABLY OTHER COUNTRIES ALSO] EVOLUTION IS PUT FORTH AS A FACT. THE CBC [CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION] ON TV AND RADIO, HAS A FELLOW CALLED BOB MACDONALD. WHEN HE SPEAKS, HE SPEAKS IN THE MIND-SET THAT EVOLUTION IS A FACT. IT IS TAUGHT IN CANADA THAT LIFE BEGAN IN THE SEA, THAT SOMEHOW [FROM ANOTHER METIOR OR FROM WHATEVER ON EARTH] CERTAIN CHEMICALS MIXED, AND BINGO, THE FIRST LIVING CELL WAS SOMEHOW CREATED, LIFE STARTED. THEN OVER MILLIONS OF BILLIONS OF YEARS, MICROSCOPIC LIFE, THEN TINY TINY LIFE YOU COULD SEE CAME, THEN A LITTLE LARGER LIFE…. AND SO ON TO CREATURES OF THE SEA, WHO EVENTUALLY COME ON LAND. THEY OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS BECAME SOME OF THE LAND CREATURE LIKE THE DINOSAUR WORLD. SOME IT IS CLAIMED WENT BACK INTO THE SEA, DE-EVOLUTIONIZED TO FORM MORE DEA CREATURES OF TODAY. SOME ON LAND SLOWLY FORMED WINGS AND BECAME THE FLYING BIRDS.
THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT ALL - ACTUALLY THE LONG…..EVOLUTION SLOWLY BECAME US AND THE WORLD WE HAVE TODAY.
SOME WOULD LIKE TO ADD "MUTATIONS" ALONG THE WAY TO TREY AND GET AROUND A DESIGN CREATOR.
HUMMMM… SO WE HAVE THE CATERPILLAR, WE'LL SAY IT EVOLVED TO SUCH. NOW THE CATERPILLAR SEEMS TO BE QUITE HAPPY MUNCHING ON LEAVES. LOTS OF FOOD IT HAS. WHY BOTHER SAYING TO ITSELF, "I THINK I'D LIKE TO BE A FLYING CREATURE LIKE SOME I SEE." SO IT MUTATES TO A HANGING SACK, BUT FORGETS TO FIGURE THE NEXT STAGE…… IT DIES AND NO BUTTERFLY. THEN OKAY WE'LL SAY IT GETS THE NEXT TAGE, AND IN ITS SACK IT BASICALLY DISSOLVES ITSELF, BUT HAS NOT FIGURED WHAT TO DO WITH ITS DISSOLVE. NO BUTTERFLY. OKAY WE'LL SAY IT FIGURES TO MAKE A NEW BODY, EYES, ANTENNAS; BUT HAS NOT FIGURES HOW TO MAKE WINGS. NO BUTTERFLY! AND THERE ARE MANY MORE THINGS TO FIGURE TO BE A FULL LIVING, FUNCTIONING BUTTERFLY.
UNLESS THIS CATERPILLAR CAN FIGURE IT ALL OUT AND EXECUTE IT ALL OUT, THERE IS NO BUTTERFLY. AND WHY WOULD ONE BUTTERFLY DECIDE TO DO A MIGRATION EACH YEAR, SOME OVER THOUSANDS OF MILES TO MEXICO [THE MONARK-BUTTERFLY]; WHY BOTHER TO EVOLVE SUCH A THING; WHY NOT JUST LIVE AND REPRODUCE AND DIE, IN THE AREA YOU ARE BORN, LIKE OTHER BUTTERFLIES? I GUESS SOME EVOLUTIONISTS COULD ANSWER, "WELL EVOLUTION DOES SOME PRETTY STUPID THINGS AT TIMES." YA JUST AS STUPID AS THE MIND OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.
TO SAY THE CATERPILLAR FIGURED IT OUT IN ONE MASSIVE "MUTATION" IS STRETCHING THE MIND FROM HERE TO THE MOON - IT IS REALLY LAUGHABLE.
AND IF MAN HAS BEEN ON EARTH LIKE SOME SAY, 40 OR 50 THOUSAND YEARS OR MUCH MORE, WHY ARE WE NOT STILL SEEING SLOW EVOLUTION AND/OR MUTATIONS HAPPENING ALL AROUND US? WHY DO WE NOT SEE SOME LAND ANIMALS STILL TRYING TO SLOWLY DEVELOP WINGS? OR SOME INSECT TURNING ITSELF INTO ANOTHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES, LIKE THE CATERPILLAR TO THE BUTTERFLY?
IF MAN BEING HERE FOR A MILLION YEARS OR SO, HAS MANAGED TO CHANGE INTO 3 OR 4 DIFFERENT COLORS OF SKIN, WHY HASN'T MAN EVOLVED 4 ARMS AND HANDS [THINK WHAT YOU COULD DO WITH 4 OF EACH]; WHY DID WE NOT MUTATE INTO HAVING 4 LEGS, OR 4 EYES? HOW ABOUT MUTATING INTO HAVING 6 EYES, 2 ON THE FRONT, 2 ON THE SIDE, AND 2 ON THE BACK OF THE HEAD.
I MEAN IF NATURE JUST KEEPS MOVING AND MUTATING, AS IT DID IN THE BEGINNING SO WE ARE TOLD, WHY BOTHER STOPPING?
WHY DOES NOT SOME MICROSCOPIC STUFF NOT FORM INTO LITTLE CREATURES STILL, IF IT ONCE DID TO BRING CREATURES INTO THIS WORLD.
WHY DO WE NOT SEE ALL OF THIS EVOLUTION, BE IT VERY SLOWLY FORMING, OR MUTATION FORMING INTO NEW SPECIES, ALL AROUND US. WHY DO WE NOT SEE IT BY THE THOUSANDS IN THE STRATA OF THE EARTH, AS IT DEVELOPED, FAILED, OR WAS BURIED BY SOME CATASTROPHE LIKE WE SEE THE DINOSAURS WERE BURIED. SURELY THERE WOULD OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS BEEN BURIALS AND SO FOSSILS OF HALF THIS OR QUARTER THAT, WITH MANY CREATURES AS THEY SLOWLY WERE TRANSFORMING THEMSELVES, BUT GOT BURIED BY SOME MUD SLIDE OR WHATEVER.
THE MORE WE DISCOVER ABOUT EVEN THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE, THE MORE WE DISCOVER THEIR MASTERFUL INTRICATE DESIGN.
EVOLUTION IS THE SILLIEST, DUMBEST, CRAZIEST IDEA MAN HAS EVER DEVISED; BUT THEN PEOPLE WILL THINK SUCH MADNESS, SIMPLY BECAUSE TO ADMIT THERE IS A GOD, MEANS THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT HE COULD TELL US HOW WE SHOULD BE LIVING; THAT HE WOULD THEN HAVE THE POWER TO GIVE US AND PRESERVE HIS WORD FOR US, THAT TELLS US RIGHT FROM WRONG, AND WE MUST BE WILLING TO HAVE OUR MIND-SET TO FOLLOW HIS INSTRUCTIONS, TO OBTAIN MERCY AND GRACE AND ETERNAL LIFE. FOR WITH SUCH A GOD WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO ADMIT HE CAN GIVE US LIFE ETERNAL.
Keith Hunt