"After Its Kind"
"For the invisible things of Him out of the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." Romans 1:20
"After Its Kind" The First and Last Word on Evolution
By Byron C. Nelson, Th M. 13th Printing 1958
MORE than twenty years have gone by since the last revision of this book. Meanwhile the author has kept close watch of any developments or discoveries which might require him to alter the views which he expressed in earlier editions. Happily there have been no such developments. Rather, the author has been more strongly confirmed in all his earlier views. For one thing, medical research has continued to find that all the organs of the human body that were once said by evolutionists to have been rendered useless by evolution actually perform important functions, thus further eliminating from the "undeniable proofs of evolution" that one which helped to establish the theory back in Charles Darwin's day—namely, the so-called proof from "vestigial" organs. For another thing, geological discoveries have continued to fill in the geological record with fossil forms which are like living forms, and more living forms have been found which are identical with forms said by the evolutionists to have evolved and become extinct millions of years ago, thus bearing put the contention of the creationists that life has always been just as it is now. As the author continued to follow the developments in the study of genetics, he became confirmed in his early interpretation of the word "kind" (Hebrew min), found in the title of this book, which the author regarded as referring to what the biologists call "species." It was the "species" that were created, not the "genera," "families," "orders," etc. The pro-evolutionary president of the British Association, Bateson, said in 1922 that until the rising of a new species which was permanently sterile toward its parent forms had been actually witnessed, evolution has not been scientifically proved. This test still has not been meet.
A common practice among evolutionists to bolster their faltering theory is to talk about "evolution by hybridization," or the production among plants of new species through the crossing of widely different existing species, such, for example, as a new form of plant produced by a Russian named Krapechenko in 1928 through the crossing of radish and cabbage. (Incidentally, this intergeneric Raphano-Brassica double-diploid hybrid has not managed to survive.) But it is obvious that any theory of evolution by hybridization begs the entire question, because it assumes the existence of widely differing existing species to start with. It is true that if we hybridize one species with another and are able to produce a third, we have three species where we had only two before, but that does not explain how the first and the second species, from which the third arose, came. They must already have been in existence. The problem for the evolutionists is to explain how entirely new species came to be, as Bateson pointed out, not how existing species can hybridize. Actually—so far as any real evolution is concerned (the word evolution comes from the Latin evolution, which means unrolling or unfolding)—all hybridizing leaves us just where we were.. It Is strange how hard it is for evolutionists to see this, although one of their number, Julian Huxley, did say that this form of speciation (hybridizing) means a reduction in the number of species and if followed out logically as a means of evolution would mean the reduction of the world to one species.
So there has been no necessity on the author's part for a revision of this book because of a need of making corrections. However, a number of times in the past twenty years the author has had occur to him ways in which the book might be made of more value to the Church. Hence the present revision.
The author calls attention to two books which may profitably be read in connection with "Ajter Its Kind," since they were written to develop more fully certain sections of "Ajter Its Kind," namely its section- on geology and its section on ancient human remains. One is The Deluge Story in Stone (1931), the other Before Abraham (1948), both published by Augsburg Publishing House.
Byron C. Nelson
Clearing the Ground
IN order to help the reader to a satisfactory understanding of the subject of evolution it is necessary to clear the ground of possible misunderstandings by a few definitions and explanations. Among the matters that should be considered are:
WHAT IS MEANT BY EVOLUTION
The word "evolution" has various usages. The growth which is observed when a kernel of corn is thrown into the soil and in due time brings forth a leafy stalk is not what is meant by "evolution," although the term evolution is sometimes used to describe it. The development that has been observed in the modern steamship, from Fulton's side-wheeler on the Hudson to the giant trans-Atlantic liner is not what is meant by "evolution," although men speak of the evolution of the steamship, the printing press, the automobile. Nor is "Darwinism" what is meant by "evolution," though the words are sometimes used synonymously. "Evolution" as the word is used in the widespread discussion of the present day, denotes a process which has taken place entirely naturally, without the miraculous intervention of any Divine Being, 1 by which, from out of a single remote ancestor living in the waters of some distant sea, have come all the living thing in the
1. The whole evolutionary principle breaks down when any interference from an outside source is admitted. If the supernatural is admitted in one place it cannot logically be excluded in another. If a creative act is admitted once it is thereby admitted in principle that creative acts may have occurred twice or fifty thousand times, and thus that all species may have been created by separate acts of divine volition.
world today. It is a natural process which, if it ever took place, would enable all birds, fish, reptiles, mammals, apes and men to trace their ancestry back from all directions to a speck of protoplasm that somehow came into existence, hundreds of millions of years ago. "Evolution" means a process by which man must trace his ancestry back to some, ape form, then to some quadruped, thence to some reptile, thence to some amphibian, thence to some fish, thence to an invertebrate, thence to some single celled creature that lived in the slime of the sea. If "evolution" is a fact, then species have never been fixed and are not so now, but have been continually drifting over from one form into another since world history began. This, the commonly accepted meaning of the term, is the one which will be given it in the ensuing discussion.
THE FIRST WORD ON EVOLUTION
A correct understanding of what the Bible teaches regarding the origin of plants and animals is an exceedingly vital matter for those who would have an intelligent understanding of the doctrine of special creation. As will be seen in a later chapter, the most crude misconceptions of special creation prevail among evolutionists and are attributed by them to those who uphold the creation theory.
In chapter one of Genesis we read, "And God said, 'Let the earth put forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed, thereof upon the earth and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind whose seed was in itself'" (Gen. 1:11-12). Concerning the animals that live in the water: whales fish/oysters, crabs—and those that fly, we read, "And God said, 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.' And God created the great sea-monsters and every living creature that moves, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind and every winged bird after its kind, and it was so" (Gen. 1:20-21). Concerning the animals that live on land we read, "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle and living things and beasts of earth after their, kind, the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth on the ground after its kind' " (Gen. 1:24-25).
The Bible is not a text-book of science. In the first chapter of Genesis, however, because it is a matter of the greatest religious importance, the Bible speaks clearly and finally on a matter of biology. After its kind is the statement of a biological principle that no human observation has ever known to fail. The most ancient human records engraved on stone or painted on the walls of caves bear witness to the fact that horses have ever been horses, bears have ever been bears, geese have ever been geese, reindeer have ever been reindeer. The most desperate and subtle effort of man in modern times have been unable to alter this divine decree.
The Bible teaches that from the beginning there have been a large number of types of living things, man included, which were so created as to remain true to their particular type throughout all generations. These types or kinds may be fittingly described as species. 2 But here a word of
2 Creationists are not all in agreement today concerning what was created according to Genesis. There are those who hold that some other units than species were the first forms God made and are the "kinds" referred to in Genesis. They believe the original units were larger—what they call "genera"; or that they were still larger—what they call "families"; or still larger—what they call "orders"; or still larger—what the call "classes".; or still larger— what they call "phyla." But all except species are figments of the imagination or arbitrary conceptions. The statement is often made that this is true concerning species also, but the statement is incorrect. The species have a reality which "genera," "families," "orders," etc., do not have. All biologists, when not contending for the theory of evolution, accept the view of Julian Huxley who said (Evolution—a Modem Synthesis, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London, 1943, p. 167), "If we ask whether there is any greater biological reality corresponding to the term species than to higher systematic units such as genus, family, or order, we must reply in the affirmative. Thus, Dobzhansky . . . writes . . . 'There is a single systematic category which, in contrast to others, has withstood all changes in nomenclature with amazing tenacity. . . . In most animal and plant groups, except in the so-called difficult ones, the delineation of species is subject to no dispute at all.' And again, 'Despite all difficulty in classifying species in certain exceptional groups of organisms, biologists have continued to feel there is something about species that makes them more definite entities than all other categories.' Bateson has expressed this feeling quite precise, 'Though we cannot strictly define species, yet they have properties which varieties have not, and the distinction is not merely a matter of degree.' Mayr (1940) confirms this from the angle of the taxonomist: It is quite amazing that in well-worked groups there is hardly any doubt what is a species and what is not.'" The existence of species is so clear and definite that the creationist abandons the only tenable, genetical, battle-line there is against the theory of evolution, once the species have been abandoned, and can then argue only negatively against the theory. No line of demarcation exists, logically or biologically, between genera, families, orders, classes or phyla (and we may as well include sub-kingdoms and kingdoms also), which means that the most extreme theory of evolutionary change must logically be admitted, including the theory that men grew out of apes, if the species concept is abandoned.
caution is necessary. We must determine what a species is. Men often speak as if a species is any particular type of plant or animal which possesses marked characteristics of its own and breeds true-to form. For example, the fox-terrier is called a species, because it is able to produce offspring like itself. The dachshund, the collie, the police-dog are called species, because they are able to produce their own particular forms. In this way the human race has been divided into several species according to the shape of the head, the colour of the skin, the slant of the eve. But such species are not what the Bible means by the word "kind."
The Bible does not mean to say that every distinct form of plant or animal men see about them came from the hand of the Creator in just the form in which it is beheld. It is not the several types of dogs: fox-terrier, dachshund, collie, that were created to remain the same forever, but the one natural species, dog. The "kinds" of Genesis refer not to the "systematic" species identified by men, but to those natural species of which the world is full, which have power to vary within themselves in such a way that the members of the species are not all exactly alike, but which, nevertheless, cannot go out of the bounds that the Creator set--(Fig-. 2.)
In order to make the matter perfectly clear the natural species man may be taken as an example. It was man that was made, not the Negro, the Chinese, the European. Two human beings whom the Bible knows as Adam and Eve were created, out of whom by natural descent and variation have come all the varieties of men that are on the face of the earth. All races of men, regardless of color or size, are one natural species. They all think alike, feel alike, are alike in physical structure, readily intermarry, and are capable of reproducing others of the same character. All races are descended from two common ancestors who came full-formed from the hand of the Creator.
The creative acts as they concern the lower forms of life are shrouded in obscurity. Whether, as in the case of man, each natural species of the lower animals was started in
Fig. 2. The Biblical concept of a species. Two dogs were created out of which all the known varieties have come. The decree "after its kind" set the bounds of their habitation. Within set limits great variation, according to Mendel's Laws, may occur, and varieties of dogs new and strange to man may be produced. Yet they are still dog. Outside the limits variation cannot go. If these varieties were found in the fossil state they would be called, in the interest of evolution, distinct species.
a single pair, we do not know. From the analogy of the human species such was very probably the case. A single pair of dogs likely was created, from which have come all the 40 or 50 varieties which can be seen in any large dog show, ranging from the tiny Poodle up to the great Dane, with the long line of shapes and sizes in between.
The world contains a species of over forty distinct varieties of cattle, all crossing readily and producing fertile offspring. This cattle species includes such well known domestic beef and milk breeds as the Shorthorn, Hereford, Durham, Angus, Holstein, Jersey, Guernsey, Dexter, Kerry, Devon, Highlander, Park and possibly a number of breeds that are wild. Each of these varieties was not created, but a pair out of which they were all derived. The twenty known varieties of wild and tame hogs of the world in all probability constitute a natural species pig that had its origin also in a single created pair.
While the Bible allows that new varieties may have arisen since the creative days, it denies that any new species have arisen, using the term species to denote natural rather than systematic species. It permits of the view that many new and strange varieties of the kind pigeon, have arisen through the efforts of pigeon fanciers, but it denies that any of these pigeons is anything but a "pigeon" or that it may ever produce among its offspring anything that is not a pigeon. The lover of the Bible who would come to a clear understanding of the evolutionary problem and to a firm faith in the Bible doctrine of creation must learn to distinguish between a natural species and the many varieties or sub-species in which God has ordained that natural species may appear.
Only in comparatively few cases do men know exactly what the limits of a natural species are. That there is a limit is the evident teaching of the first chapter of Genesis, but just what forms of life are comprised in certain natural species is not definitely known. It is known pretty accurately what the limits of the horse species are: that it does not include the ass, since the cross between the horse and the ass is a sterile animal. 3 The limits of the natural species
3 "Sterile" is the term used to denote the fact that a living organism is unable to bear offspring. Its opposite is "fertile."
dog are more definitely known. It includes not only the large variety of domestic animals that we know as dogs, but the jackal, the wolf, and the coyote as well. It does not include the fox, which is another natural species. All forms of dog are capable of cross-breeding and producing fertile offspring. Some forms of life which one would not readily suspect
Fig. 3. A few of the many varieties of the species to which the cabbage belongs— the most widely variable vegetable species known. (1) wild cabbage, (2) kohl-rabi, (3) Brussels sprouts, (4) collards, (5) kale, (6) cauliflower, (7) conical cabbage, (8) Savoy cabbage, (9) broad-leaved cabbage. These varieties are impossible to distinguish in the early stages of growth, and the flowers, seed-pods and seeds are identical. The important thing is that the hundred or so varieties of this natural species cross readily with one another and produce fertile seed, but cross with any other natural species with greatest difficulty. (See Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London, Vol. 5, pages 1-43.)
belong to the same natural species are found by breeding experiments actually to be so. (Fig 3.) We quote the prominent student of heredity, Punnett: "It is not visible attributes that constitute the essential difference between one species and another. The essential difference, whatever it may be, is that underlying the phenomenon of sterility. There is little doubt that numbers of well recognized species (i.e., stematic species) will eventually fall to the ground as soon as we are in a position to apply the test of breeding.'' 4
Truth derived from observation of nature demands that power of variation be admitted in species. Truth derived from the Scriptures demands that this power of variation in species be limited. Both demands are satisfied by the scientific definition of a species adopted and defended 5 by Prof. William Bateson, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 1914-1927: a species is a group of organisms with marked characteristics in common and freely interbreeding. This definition allows for the variation which we know exists in natural species, and yet acknowledges the existence of the wall of partition between natural species known as sterility, which Punnett says is the true test of natural species. 6
THE VOICE OF THE MULE
From what has been said it is evident that God created plants and animals in such a manner as to enable some species, under certain conditions, to cross with entirely different species and produce what are called "hybrids," a word which originally signified some sort of a monstrosity. This hybridizing takes place more readily among the plants than among the animals. But instead of this
4 Mendelism, 6th ed., page 182.
5 See Nature, July 15, 1922.
6 Darwin tried to blot out the idea that there are such things as natural species and his followers have continued to muddy the truth by saying that what are called natural species are separated from each other by "all degrees of sterility," ignoring the fact that any degree of sterility, great or small, is sufficient to keep the species separate, since any degree of sterility will eventually destroy any interspecific hybrid.
furnishing evidence against species as definite realities and as the original units of creation, it offers most important indications in favor of this very thing-—-when all the facts are carefully analyzed.
Horses and asses, two definite natural species, which are so much alike that they are classified as belonging. o the same genus and are said by evolutionists to have had the same ancestors, possess different numbers of chromosomes in their germ or "marrying" cells. The ass has 32 chromosomes and the horse 19. 7 The products of crosses between horses and asses are "mules." and male mules are always completely sterile. No colt has ever been born which has had a male mule for its father. In rare cases, however, female mules have produced colts, provided they have been mated with jacks (male asses) or stallions (male horses). But the offspring of these latter matings are such as to show clearly the wide difference between horses and asses.
The situation in regard to female mules which are fertile (and it must be remembered that such animals are extremely rare) is that, insofar as their ability to bear offspring is concerned, they are actually horses. This statement is repeated: Insofar as female mules can be parents at all, they are actually horses. They look like a combination of the horse and ass, but they can only breed like horses. For, whenever a female mule is mated with a male horse (she can never be mated with a male mule because all male mules are sterile) her offspring, if she has one, is in all respects a horse. It looks like a horse and breeds like a horse. And, further, whenever a female mule is mated with a male ass and a colt is born, this colt is in all respects a mule—an animal just like what is produced from an original cross between a horse and an ass. Somehow the female mule loses its power to pass on in its germ-cells any of its ass-parent's nature.
7 While the difference in chromosome numbers is important, it is not as important as it may seem, for other natural species, such as the two similar fruit-flies, Drosophila Melanogaster and Drosophila Simulans have exactly the same number of chromosomes, yet they have greater difficulty in mating than do the horses and the asses. The characteristics within the chromosomes form the vital difference.
Many experiments with the breeding of mules have proved what has been said. 8 A similar situation to that of the horse and ass exists in the case of the ass and the zebra, a creature belonging to the same genus as the horse and the ass. Like the mule the ass-zebra hybrid is sterile. Still another example is the "cattalo," a type of animal which results from the crossing of bison and domestical cattle. 9 Almost a hundred years ago cattle raisers of the northwestern states began to try to produce a more rugged type of animal for their ranges by crossing bison and cattle, and for the past 35 years the Canadian Government has been working on the same project. No marked success has ever been attained because of the phenomena of sterility which characterizes all crosses between species.
When bison and cattle are mated, nearly all the progeny are born dead, if a bison male is crossed with a cattle female. The mortality is less when a bison female is crossed with a cattle male. But then sterility enters, just as it does in the case of the mule. For, the male hybrids of bison-cattle crosses are always sterile. Only female hybrids are fertile, and only very few of them. This sterility of the male continues down to the fifth and sixth generation, before signs of fertility in the male hybrids are
8 The above information is from "Fertile Mare Mules," bj' W. S. Anderson of the University of Kentucky, Journal of Heredity, Vol. 50, pages 548-50. Professor Anderson explains the matter of the female mule's progeny's loss of its ass-heredity by saying, "The explanation seems to be, that if the female mule produces an ovum without ass chromosomes, it is viable. It could happen, if in the division of the oocyte, all the ass chromosomes clung together and went into the polar or waste cells, the final ovum would contain only chromosomes received from the horse ancestor. If this hypothetical explanation is true, then the viable ovum of a mare mule would carry the haploid number of horse chromosomes just as the ova of all female horses. On the other hand, no viable ova are produced by female mules except the rare ones, in which the sister polar cells carried away all the ass chromosomes."
9 Our American domestic cattle readily cross with the zebu of India. Sturdy new strains of range cattle for the warm southern states and Mexico have lately been produced by crossing zebus with our common beef breeds. No trouble at all has been experienced in this because the zebu belongs to the same natural species as cattle and has the same number and type of chromosomes.
noted, and by that time, if not long before, the animals have lost all traces of one or the other of the original parent's nature, not only in outward appearance but in breeding ability as well. A late (1948) report from the Canadian Government says that in its experiments the first fertile male, produced after an original bison-cattle cross, was a domestic bull which had in it 1/32 bison inheritance and 31/32 cattle ancestry. Mossom Boyd, a wealthy cattle-man who performed many years of experiments in crossing bison and cattle said, "An ordinary observer might mistake a three-quarter buffalo for a bison. The one-eighth buffaloes would not be distinguished at all from domestic cattle. 9a
The results of the crossing of bison and cattle and of many other similar crossings of distinct natural species bear witness to the truth of the statement made by Babcock and Clausen 10 "It has often been observed that the progenies of partially fertile hybrids run back to the parental condition."
9a See Hybridisation of the Domestic Cattle and Bison—Canadian Government abstract, by Sylvestre, Logan and Muir, 1948. Also M. Boyd, Journal of Heredity, Vol. 5, pages 189-198.
10 Genetics in Relation to Agriculture, 1927, page 324.
Evolutionary biologists claim today that they have produced many "new species" by the crossing of different species of plants, but when their claims are analyzed it is seen that the so-called new species they have produced are essentially the same as mules and cattaloes. Within them is a combination of foreign elements which does not permit them to have the power to survive in changing circumstances which is characteristic of true natural species. They may be called "pseudo-species." Pseudo-species, if they had lasting qualities, which they do not, could never be regarded as causing evolution because they are simply the making of one out of two. Evolution requires the making of two out of one and then some.
For further consideration of natural species the reader is referred to the appendix "Natural Species" in the back of this book.
Within the last half century the study of certain laws of variation and heredity discovered in 1865 and lost and rediscovered again in 1900 has produced knowledge of facts of tremendous value to those who accept the doctrine of special creations. These laws are known as Mendel's Laws. They will be considered in some detail in a later chapter. Suffice it to say here that the discovery of which we speak gives a clear and remarkably satisfactory view of the manner in which such formations of new varieties out of a common pair as has been suggested could have taken place.
In concluding the discussion of what the Bible teaches it might be said that if the reader would picture to himself a vast number of circles (Fig. 2, 3), and would label each circle with names such as man, dog, cat, pigeon, sheep, and would understand that within each of these circles each species that he has named has varied by interbreeding and produced many forms, yet with never the power to vary so much as to go outside of the circle into the production of a new creature incapable of crossing back again with any of its fellows, and will say "Thus it has been from the beginning," the reader will have a clear, correct, and satisfactory conception of the teaching of the first chapter of Genesis regarding the biological history of animals and plants.
HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE?
The smallest bit of living matter is the cell. Many, different creatures exist which are composed of only a single cell. The bacteria which cause diseases, the yeasts and bread-molds, are of this class. It was believed at the time the evolution theory first gained prominence in modern times that a cell, the simplest living organism was composed of nothing but "slime" of some common, liquid material. Then, however, within the cell-matter, by the use of the microscope, was discovered the nucleus, which was found to be a vital part of the life of the cell controling the reproduction of its species. Presently the structure of the cell was found to be still more complex, for there was discovered within the nucleus vitally important structures called chromosomes. The end was not vet. Inside of the chromosomes have been discovered what are called the genes, and there is no doubt that higher powered microscopes may reveal still smaller vital structures. The wonder of a cell is apparent when it is realized that out of it comes a frog, or a chick, a guinea-pig with white hair, or a guinea-pig with black hair. No expensive watch can begin to compare with a single cell for complexity of structure. A cell has been described as "a little universe, formed of a host of self-propagating organisms, inconceivably minute and numerous as the stars of heaven." 11 The material of the cell cannot be analyzed. It baffles all attempts to take it apart or put it together, for as soon as such things are attempted the life within it flees and only such dead material as might be swept up off the floor remains.
The coming into existence of one of these bits of life with which the evolutionary process might begin must be explained by evolutionists. When the theory first gained prominence, those who upheld it had no trouble with the problem of the origin of that first living form. When asked how it originated the answer was "by spontaneous generation." Life simply arose out of dead matter spontaneously. When asked if there was any evidence that life could or did originate in this manner, the first evolutionists pointed to the well known fact that in pools of clear water deposited by rain myriads of minute living organisms soon appeared, and also to the fact that in a decaying carcass tiny maggots quickly made their appearance. These were said to be formed spontaneously out of dead matter.
For almost a generation this evidence of how the first living thing originated was considered highly satisfactory to the evolutionists. But in 1846 Pasteur performed those famous experiments that forever destroyed this evidence of spontaneous generation. The way for Pasteur had been paved by a man named Redi, who had the correct idea that the maggots in carcasses were produced by flies laying their eggs in the dead flesh. By screening off the flies he had prevented any maggots from appearing. It was Pasteur, however, who demonstrated that the smaller forms of life, the bacteria, also did not originate by themselves out of dead matter, but came from other bacteria that already existed. By thoroughly sterilizing meat or other food and
11 Conklin, Heredity and Environment, 5th ed., page 210.
then preventing any of the bacteria that fly in the air from coming into contact with it, he found that it could be kept for years fresh and wholesome and free from those forms of life that produce decay, whereas other bits of food substances kept in the same conditions but exposed to germs already existing soon became infested with living things. The long accepted "evidence" of spontaneous generation was destroyed by the knowledge that all living things can and, do come naturally only from other living things.
With the work of Pasteur the idea of spontaneous generation as an explanation of the origin of life was abandoned as a thing that could be scientifically demonstrated. Other evolutionists, therefore, offered as a solution of the problem the theory that the first bit of life came to this earth from some other planet, carried on a bit of star-dust. This solution met with no approval, for it was obviously only shoving the problem farther away without solving it. The question still remains unanswered by non-believers in creation, and the prospects are that it will ever remain so. "This mystery may, indeed, be forever beyond human-understanding." 12
By all consistent evolutionists the origin of life by spontaneous generation or by transference from some other planet to this earth is held as an act of faith. Not thus to hold it necessitates admitting the supernatural into the evolutionary process. Such an admission, however, consistent evolutionists are totally unwilling to allow, for if it be granted that God made the first cell, it cannot well be denied that He may and could and very likely did create other species by distinct creative acts, as the Bible sets forth. Haeckel said, "The origin of the first monera (living cell) by spontaneous generation appears to us a necessary event in the process of the development of the earth. We admit that this process, as long as it is not directly observed or repeated by experiment, remains pure hypothesis. But I must say again that this hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent, non-miraculous history of creation." Many evolutionists, like Darwin, are willing to ac-
12 Vernon Kellogg, World's Work, March, 1926.
13 History of Creation, page 348.
knowledge their inconsistency and say that God intervened at the very beginning to bring life into existence. Darwin said, "I imagine that probably all organic beings which ever lived on this earth descended from some primitive form which was first called into life by the Creator."
(THEY WILL NEVER TELL YOU THAT DARWIN NEAR DEATH WAS ALWAYS READING THE BIBLE. THE LADY WHO LOOKED AFTER HIM TELLS US, THAT DARWIN SAID, "I WAS YOUNG AND LETTING MY MIND WONDER; I NEVER EXPECTED THEY WOULD TAKE MY WRITING AND RUN WITH IT AS THEY HAVE DONE." Keith Hunt)
Still other evolutionists, and these are in the majority, simply and conveniently avoid the question entirely. Without attempting to explain, they assume the first living thing to have come into existence somehow, and then attempt to show how the evolution process went on from that point. They proceed to build in the air, as it were. The reader should clearly realize this weakness in the theory which men would put in place of the Bible doctrine of creation.
By "evolution" is meant the non-miraculous origin and development of the present world of plants and animals out of a single-celled ancestor. The Bible teaches that natural species have been the same from the beginning, but that there has been a wide variation within each of them. The production of new varieties or sub-species within natural species is no justification for the statement that evolution is going on at the present time. The origin of the first living cell out of which all living things are said to have evolved must, by the evolutionist, be inconsistently "attributed" to a supernatural act of God, or be assumed, without proof, to have taken place by "spontaneous generation."
TODAY THEY TRY TO LAY WEIGHT ON THINGS COMING FROM OUTER-SPACE TO EARTH, MIXING WITH WATER, CHEMICALS OF THIS AND THAT, AND OVER MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF YEARS THE FIRST MICROSCOPIC "LIFE" WAS BEGUN…. THEN OVER MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF YEARS CELLS FORMED, AND SO ON UNTIL SOMETHING WAS FORMED, TO WHICH SOMETHING ELSE CAME MILLIONS OF YEARS LATER, TO WHICH SOMETHING ELSE CAME INTO BEING; AND SO ON UNTIL THE FIRST WATER OR SEA CREATURE, THAT THEN CAME ON LAND, AND OVER MORE MILLIONS OF YEARS, OR BILLIONS OF YEARS, WE HAVE THE CREATURES OF PLANET EARTH; WITH THE FINAL STAGE BEING US, AND WHAT THE EARTH HAS TODAY.
A BUNCH OF HOG-WASH-SCOOBY-DO POOY-DOOY MENTALITY. THEN TO ADD TO THE EVOLUTIONISTS DRIBBLE AND COUNTER-ATTACK THEIR CRAZY MIND-SET, THEY NOW [WELL 99 PERCENT OF THEM] ADDMIT THE UNIVERSE STARTED WITH A BIG-BANG; FROM A NOTHINGNESS TO A PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITH GOVERNING LAWS LIKE GRAVITY. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES…. A PHYSICAL UNIVERSE CREATED OUT OF NOTHING; AT ONE POINT IN THE PAST THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL ANYTHING, THEN IN A FLASH, THERE WAS THE BIG BANG START OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. EVENTUALLY THE EVOLUTIONISTS WILL CLIMB THE RUGGED MOUNTAIN, REACH THE TOP, GASPING FOR AIR, AND FIND GOD SITTING ON A ROCK AND SAYING TO THEM, "WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG TO FIND ME?"
TO BE CONTINUED