AFTER ITS KIND
From the book by the same name (1958)
Bridging the Gap
NO logical, consistent evolutionist will permit in his scheme of evolution any interference from an outside source. Evolution, according to him, is a natural process devoid of all that is supernatural and miraculous. To call in the help of the God-idea in order to get over difficult places in the evolutionary explanation of the present world, e.g., to account for the origin of matter, the origin of life, is declared to be "unscientific'' and the policy rebuked as that of the "obscurantist"a term of derision or depreciation often applied to creationists. The supernatural cannot be admitted in one spot and logically excluded in another. The only consistent evolutionary position, and the only one worthy of intellectual respect is that of the evolutionist Huxley, who would not let God in anywhere, because, said he, "If you let God in one place you may as well let Him in all along the line."
It is, therefore, the statement of consistent evolutionists that man is entirely the product of evolution; that the regular, fixed, natural operations of matter which have produced the lower animals in their physical and psychic make-ups have also produced man, body and soul.
It is a lamentable policy on the part of creationists not to oppose the theory of evolution in the matter of plants and lower animals, but retreat before the attack until the evolution of man is reached and then turn and do battle. Such a policy is thoroughly inconsistent, since the same arguments which will prove the evolution of the lower plants and animals will also, if they are valid, prove the evolution
*The interested reader will find this chapter greatly supplemented in the author's book Before Abraham (Augsburg, 1948).
in man. One type of logic can not be accepted in one place but denied in another. Since, in the previous pages, the author has shown that the proofs and arguments for the evolution of the lower animals are not valid, he might well call a halt to this discussion. Nevertheless a few additional facts dealing particularly with the theory of human evolution may wisely be added.
THE EFFORT TO FILL IN THE PHYSICAL GAP BETWEEN MEN AND ANIMALS
Charles Darwin said that the evolutionary process produced two kinds of monkeys-—-the Old World apes and the New World apes, and from the former man evolved. He especially designated the gorilla as man's most immediate ancestor among the brutes. In other words, according to Darwin, man came from a present-day monkey and ape form. Today however this is much denied. Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History and one of the leading American evolutionists, contended that man did not come from any ape, living or ancient, but that both men and apes branched off from a common spot on the evolutionary tree further down the stem.
The reason for this modern version of the theory, separating man from any living ape-form, is, partly, the fact that it is impossible to decide which of all the apes to select as man's ancestor. 118 The gorilla may be most like man in some respects, but it cannot be chosen as the ancestral form, because man's skull is smooth on top while the male gorilla's has a high bony crest in the shape of a chicken's comb. (Fig. 40.) Man has 12 pairs of ribs. The gorilla has 13. The gibbon cannot be chosen. It has a stomach most like man's stomach, also 12 pairs of ribs, but its arms, reaching down below the ankles, tell another story. The chimpanzee has short arms, but it has 13 pairs of ribs. The orang has a brain closest to man's for shape (highest in the forehead region) but the foot of the orang has a thumb instead of a big toe. All apes have this last feature in their anatomy, giving them the appearance of
118 The following comparisons are found in Mivart's Man and Apes.
being equipped with four hands. The baboon's spine is most like man's spine, but in all other respects the baboon is widely isolated. The most human-like heads among the apes are found among some of the smallest, long-tailed South American monkeys. Mivart says, "It is manifest that man, the apes and half-apes, cannot be arranged in a single ascending series of which man is the culmination." 119
Fig. 40. A gorilla in its natural walking position. Inset, Gorilla skull.
"It should be borne in mind that it is to no one kind of ape that man has any special or exclusive affinity, and that the resemblance between him and lower forms is shared in not very unequal proportions by different species." 120
Though man is not today said to be descended from
119 Man and Apes, page 173.
120 Ibid., page 193.
any living ape form, he is nevertheless said to be an evolution from some creature of the remote past which was ape-like in all its physical and mental characteristics. It may as well be called a monkey and the hair-splitting be done with.
On the basis of a slow evolutionary process from the amoeba to man there should be millions of connecting links all along the way. They should exist between apes and man. As Prof. W. B. Scott of Princeton says, "After all, what we want most is not the missing link, hut whole chains which show clearly the descent of man." 121 This chain is admittedly lacking. While such as are alive today, are found, and many fossils of man, forms that represent states between them are not found. Evolutionists deny this, of course. They say fossils connecting men and apes have been discovered and they point to a large number of bones of considerable antiquity which they say proves their point. The most publicized of those will now be considered. It is impossible to speak of all the "proofs" of human evolution the evolutionists offer, since new missing-links keep popping up all the time. What is characteristic of the earliest and best known "proofs" now to be discussed, may be regarded as characteristic of all, even the very latest.
(l) Pithecanthropus Erectus, the "Ape-Man of Tava" (Fig. 41.) This so-called intermediate form is said to have lived approximately 500,000 122 years ago and represented the first step of the brute in man's direction.
The following account is based on an article in the Smithsonian Institute Report for 1913. 123 In September 1891, a man named Dubois, while digging for fossils in the bank of a river in Java, discovered a molar tooth. The following month he found the top part of a skull about three feet away from the place where, a month, before, he found the above mentioned tooth. A year later, in August, 1892, he found a thigh bone about fifty—feet from the spot where he found the tooth and skull top.
121 New York Times, Dec. 27, 1925.
122 One "authority" says a million years, another something else.
These and all similar estimates mean nothing.
123 Ancient Remains of Man, by Dr. Alex Hrdlicka, page 495.
Fig. 41. Models of so-called "missing-links," based on bone fragments which have been found: (A) the Ape-Man of Java (B) the Piltdown Man (C) the Heidelberg Man (D) the Neanderthal Man. It should be clearly understood that these clay models are purely imaginary. They were moulded by Prof. J. H. McGregor under the direction of Prof. H. F. Osborn. (Courtesy American Museum of Natural History.)
(YES REMEMBER ALL THAT GOES ON THE SCULL, TENDONS, MUSCLES, SKIN FAT ETC. ARE MADE UP BY MAN. YOU COULD TAKE THE SAME SCULL AND GIVE IT TO 10 PEOPLE AND ASK THEM TO ADD WHAT IS ADDED TO EVERY SCULL ON EARTH TODAY, AND THEY WILL COME UP WITH 10 DIFFERENT LOOKING PEOPLE. AND IF YOU ADD FAT WEIGHT, SOME COULD BE VERY DIFFERENT INDEED. THINK OF SOMEONE YOU MAY KNOW WHO WAS THIN, THEN GOT FAT, OR VERY FAT; THINK THE OPPOSITE, A FAT FACE THAT BECAME VERY THIN; YOU SHOULD NOW GET WHAT I'M SAYING - Keith Hunt)
In the following month, October, 1892, he found another molar tooth. These four bones, found in a region where the remains of many animal species were abundant, are the basis of the so-called ape-man of Java. (Fig. 42.)
Three years later Dubois brought the bones to Europe and laid them before the Third International Congress of Zoologists at Leiden, Germany. After he had made his report. Dr. Rudolph Virchovw, the foremost anatomist of his day, criticized Dubois report with the remark that, found as they were so far apart, there was no certainty that the bones all belonged to the same creature. Other scientists gathered at the, convention examined the bones and could come to no agreement about them.124
Immediately thereafter Dubois carried the bones to his home in Holland and locked them in a closet, where they were kept, concealed from the gaze of men, for years. Thus spoke Dr. Alex Hrdlicka, in 1913, about this closeting of this "evidence" of man's evolution'. 124a "It would surely seem proper and desirable that specimens, of such value to science should be freely accessible to well qualified investigators and that accurate casts be made available to scientific institutions, particularly after 20 years have elapsed since the discovery of the original. Regrettably, however, all that has thus far been furnished to the scientific world is a cast of the skull-cap, the commercial replicas of which yield measurements different from those reported taken of the original, and several not thoroughly satisfactory illustrations; no reproductions can be had of the femur or the teeth, and not only the study but even a view of the originals are denied to scientific men." If, as Dubois claimed, these bones were truly authentic evidence of man's evolution, it was indeed strange that they were kept in the darkness rather than in the light. Pr.of. W. H. Ballou, another evolutionist, in the North American Review of April, 1922, openly questioned Dubois' honesty in the
124 To learn how widely the evolutionists differ in their interpretations regarding this and the other "missing-links" mentioned in these pages, the reader is referred to an article, "Controversy Over Missing Links" by G. S. Miller in Smithsonian Institute Report, 1928, pages 413-465.
124a Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913, page 497.
matter on account of his refusal to place the evidence where all men can see it. He said, "All we know about Pithecanthropus is what Dubois, the finder of the remains, gave out; who then sealed up the fossil and has hidden it for thirty years! We do not even know whether he told the truth about the remains or not, and are doubtful because
Fig. 42. Fragments of the missing-link "Pithecanthropus." They consist of a skullcap, a femur, and two teeth. The skull-cap and the femur were found 50 feet apart. The teeth were found several yards from the skull. There is no certainty that any of the bones belonged to the same creature. Yet with these fragments as a basis, a creature of clay, half ape, half man in appearance, is constructed and offered to the unsuspecting public as a sure evidence of man's evolution from the brute. Note the high forehead compared to that of Lafayette in Fig. 48. (Collected from Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913.)
of his refusals to let anatomists have an opportunity to verify or disprove him."
Then at last, in 1923, under the pressure of scientific opinion, Dubois handed over his finds for critical examination. By this time he had carefully cleaned out the "inside" of the skull and made plaster-casts of its interior. It had been filled with solid earth when it was shown the only time at Leyden in 1895. Hrdlicka, then head of the Smithsonian Institute, after examining the skull said that it "revealed a remarkable brain of unexpectedly human like confirmation.'''125 The femur, Hrdlicka also said, was human, publishing; an exact comparison of it with the femur of a person who had died recently.126 Thus what had for many years been brazenly used by evolutionists as a proof of man's evolution was found to be not a proof at all. Dubois had gone to Java as a young doctor embued with the theory of evolution. He told his friends that he was wrong to bring back with him the missing-link. 126a
Eoanthropus Dawsoni, the "Dawn-Man-of-Dawson." Fig. 41B.) The second discovered form that is said to fill the gap between man and the brute is the so-called Pilt-down Man, named after the man, Dawson who had the doubtful honor of having found it.
The manner of the discovery is worth relating in detail for the purpose of showing the amount of certainty or uncertainty, as the case may be connected with this further "proof" of man's evolution from the ape. Sometime about the year 1908 Dawson got from workmen digging in a shallow gravel pit at Piltdown, England, who had been requested to watch for fossils, a small fragment of a skull of some kind. Some years later (this is as Dawson reported it himself),127 while visiting the same spot, Dawson picked up two more small parts of a skull, making three parts in all. Another year later, making the discovery extend through a period of three years by this time, half, or less than half of a jaw-bone of some man or animal was discovered. Dawson says that, guiding himself by a tree close by he concluded that the jaw-bone was found in the same spot as the skull fragments already mentioned. On the same occasion Dawson's friend, Woodward, found another tiny fragment of a skull. The year following the discovery of the half-jaw a priest named Teilhard found a tooth. In the same gravel were also found
125 Skeletal Remains of Early Man, 1930, page 45.
126 Ibid., page 62.
126a See the statements of Sir Arthur Keith in his Antiquity of Man regarding Dubois' early enthusiastic attitude.
127 Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913, page 502.
bones of the elephant, hippopotamus, beaver, horse, and deer. All the bones thus discovered, when collected together, constitute the remains of the Piltdown Man and are said to be evidence of man's evolution from the apes. (Fig. 43)
Dawson and Woodward, before the discovery was quite complete (the single tooth not having yet been found),
Fig. 43. Bone fragments which are the basis of the Piltdown Man: 1, 2, 3, 6, skull fragments; 4, jaw fragment; 5, tooth; 7, flint. (The Hall of the Age of Man Guide Leaflet No. 52, American Museum of Natural History.)
made a reconstruction with plaster of Paris of the skull of the missing link as they conceived it to be. (Fig. 45.) Motivated by the hope that they had in their possession a transition form between men and apes, they made a plaster model of a head—half man, half ape—giving to the head the size they thought such an intermediate creature should have had, that is about 1070 cubic centimeters brain capacity. Into this plaster head-cast they pressed the skull fragments as they supposed them to be related to one another. Into the jaw, which had been moulded into what was considered the proper chinless shape, they forced the half-jaw that had been found. They later gave the tooth a place next to the lower jaw.
However, all was not well. Sir Arthur Keith, the head of the English Royal College of Surgeons, himself an evolutionist, took issue with Dawson and Woodward as to the manner in which their reconstruction of the skull with much plaster of Paris had been accomplished. Keith figured the skull should be larger than they had made it. About 1500 cubic centimeters brain capacity instead of
Fig. 44. Rear views of two reconstructions of the "Piltdown Man." The dark parts are the recovered bones. In fitting the bone-fragments together a storm of controversy raged between Dr. Smith Woodward, joint finder of the bones, and Sir Arthur Keith, both evolutionists. Woodward said the fragments should be arranged as seen at the left and that the brain capacity, therefore, was 1070 c. c. Keith said the fragments should be fitted together as seen at the right and the brain capacity was, therefore, 1500 c. c. These two rear views are copied from drawings by Keith and Woodward themselves appearing in Nature for Oct. 16, 1913.
1070 was his idea. Thereupon began an argument between the two. Keith on the one hand and Woodward on the other, which was carried on for months in the magazine Nature, as to the proper size of the skull. The fragments were arranged and re-arranged according to the whims of the contestants: No final agreement was reached.
In 1925 Keith wrote a new book on human evolution 128 in which he returned to the matter of the size of the Piltdown
128 The Antiquity of Man. Lippincott, London, 1925.
reconstruction and published elaborate diagrams and gave extended reasons why the reconstruction should be even bigger than he had contended for back in 1913, and declared, "Except for the thickness of the skull bones, the head is shaped and balanced as in us. In its general confirmation it does not differ materially from human skulls of modern type" 129
Nor was all well among evolutionists with the single tooth and the jaw. By Woodward and Smith the tooth found by Father Teilhard the fourth year was assigned to the lower jaw of the right side. However, when the "evidence"
Fig. 45. Front and side views of the restored head of the "Piltdown Man." This restoration was made by Dawson and Woodward. It does not show the tooth because the tooth had not been found before the restoration was made. When the tooth was found Dawson and Woodward assigned it to the lower jaw of the right side where arrow A points. By other "authorities" the tooth is assigned to the upper left jaw where arrow B points. The white parts seen in the above view are made of plaster of Paris. The dark parts are the recovered bones. The right side (hidden from view) has only the smallest fragment of bone. The remains are bulked together on the left side. (Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913.)
reached America, the tooth was assigned to a place in the upper left jaw by Osborn, Miller, Anderson and others. In America, therefore, this tooth resides in the plaster of Paris models in the upper left jaw. In Europe it resides today in the lower right jaw. The worst, however, happened to the half-jaw discovered the third year. It was emphatically declared by scientists of the highest standing
129 The Antiquity of Man, page 565.
130 not to belong with the skull fragments at all and to be that of a chimpanzee.130a
A quotation from a well-known scientist will suffice to show the utter lack of scientific knowledge in the claims of evolutionists that in the Piltdown bone fragments there is a discovery of a genuine missing link. Prof. MacCurdy of Yale says,131 All the cranial (head) fragments, including the nasal bones, are human and belong evidently to one individual. They are, however, so incomplete as to leave room for a difference of opinion especially in regard to the capacity of the brain case. From the start there were not lacking those who hesitated to accept the cranium arid mandible (jaw) as belonging to the same individual."
Homo Heidelbergensis, the "Man of Heidelberg." (Fig. 41C.) This man is said to have lived some 250,000 years ago. Publications dispensed by the American Museum of Natural History reveal this ancient mythical worthy with a slain boar thrown upon his back. Here, at last, the truth seeker expects to find a considerable amount of real evidence as a basis of it all. What, however, does he find? Merely a jaw-bone discovered in 1907 by two workmen in a sand-pit near Mauer, Germany. (Fig. 46.) The jaw bone is uncommon on account of its rounding chin, but its shape can be duplicated among living human beings. (Fig. 47.) Its counter-partpart occurs quite often among Negroes. Its teeth are distinctively human. The well known evolutionary anthropologist, Hrdlicka, says, "The teeth of the Mauer (i.e., Heidelberg) jaw are perfectly preserved and . . . they are unquestionably human teeth. They force the conclusion that their possessor . . . had already stepped over the line above which the being would be termed human.'" 132
Homo Neanderthalensis, the "Neanderthal Man." Fig. 41D.) The remains of this human being were discovered
130 Sir Ray Lankester, Prof, of Zoology and Anatonry, University of London; Prof. Marcellin Boule, of the French Museum of Natural History; Prof. G. G. MacCurdy of Yale University; Prof. David Waterston, Prof, of Anatomy, University of London.
130a But see the human-like reconstruction shown in the author's Before Abraham.
131 Science, Feb. IS, 1916.
132 Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913, page 551.
in 1856 in a cave in western Germany by two laborers. They were carelessly dug up by the workmen so that many parts were lost. Only the skull (Fig. 48) and several parts of the skeleton were saved. At once a division arose in regard to the skull—some observers regarding it as modern-human and some (the more rabid evolutionists)
Fig. 46. The Heidelburg Jaw. Judging from its size it belonged to a man of the stature of Goliath. (Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913.)
regarding it as belonging to an unknown and primitive type of early man. The author has discussed the matter fully in his book Before Abraham, to which the interested reader is referred. Here it may be said that there are thousands of men living with skulls just as ape-like in every respect as the Neanderthal skull, which has a brain capacity of about 1330 cubic centimeters—that of the average male European.
Since 1856, when the bones of the first "Neanderthal man" were discovered, a very large number of remains of other men have been unearthed in caves and ancient burial grounds of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Out of these have been selected for evolutionary propaganda purposes the remains of several, those especially that have low human characteristics. These have been described in great detail and put in museums for exhibition. Among the most important are the Men of Spy, the Man of Krapina, the Man of Jersey, the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Man, the LaGuina Man, the Mousterian Man, the Peking Man, and
Fig. 47. Profile view of Marquis de Pinedo, famous Italian aviator. Observe that the same rounding, receding shape of chin is found in this brilliant man as is found in the Heidelberg Jaw. According to evolutionary methods Pinedo's jaw, if found in some ancient deposit, would furnish good proof of evolution. (Wide World Photo)
the Rhodesian Man. They are all classed together as the Neanderthal race.
(AS STATED BEFORE TAKE A LOOK AT PEOPLE YOU MEET ON THE STREET, IN THE SHOPPING MALLS, IN THE THEATRE HOUSE, IN SPORTING EVENTS; SEE ALL THE SHAPES OF SCULLS; SEE WHAT FLESH IS ON THEM, MUCH, LITTLE, AND THINK WHAT IF THEY HAD MORE OR LESS FLESH ON THEIR FACES; WHAT IF THEY HAD MORE FAT LIPS OR THIN LIPS; THINK ABOUT SKIN TEXTURE, ROUGH, SMOOTH, PITTED, HEAVY LINES; THEN THINK HOW THEY WOULD LOOK. YA NOT SO GOOD FOR SOME, AND VERY GOOD FOR OTHERS - Keith Hunt)
However, these men are all distinctly human. (See Fig. 48-50.) In brain capacity some far exceed the average American. The capacity of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull, for example, is estimated at 1,600 c.c. These men buried their dead. They used flint implements as did the American Indian of recent times. Some of the remains of this Neanderthal race show the effects of fire and wounds. The conclusion concerning it is, therefore, well summed
Fig. 48. Left—Marquis de Lafayette, Revolutionary War hero. Center—Skull of the Man of Spy No. 1. a member of the supposed missing-link race the Neanderthals, with profile of Lafayette superimposed. This skull might have belonged to Lafayette. Right—The original Neanderthal skull. (Drawing of Lafayette from Library of Congress. Skulls from Smithsonian Institute Report. 1913.) (YES INDEED SOME SCULLS OF MEN FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF HISTORY OF THE LAST 2,000 YEARS, TAKE AWAY THEIR FLESH AND PUT A KIND OF MONKEY FLESH ON THAT SCULL; AND BINGO…. YOU HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CREATURE - SOME WOULD CALL A MISSING LINK - Keith Hunt)
up by the evolutionist. Sir Arthur Keith 133 who said, "In size of brain Neanderthal was not a low form. His skill as a flint artisan shows that his abilities were not those of a low order. He had fire at his command. He buried his dead. He had a distinct and highly evolved form of culture. Neanderthal was certainty not a dawn form of humanity."
5. The Cro-Magnon Man. Only briefly need this man be mentioned. He is distinctly human. Concerning him Osborn has said,134 The Cro-Magnons were people like
Fig. 49. Left. The La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull and jaw, which belonged to one of the so-called Neanderthal race. His brain capacity was 1600-1620 c. c, which is greater than that of the average European of today. All doubts as to his true humanity are removed by the fact that his remains were carefully buried in a rectangular grave in a cave in southern France. "Very plainly a regular burial," says Hrdlicka. Right. Skull of the Man of Spy No. 2, found buried with Man of Spy No. 1 (See Fig. 48). These skulls show that men varied in olden days as they do today. (Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913.)
(YES ONCE MORE TAKE A LOOK AT DIFFERENT SCULL FACES WHEN OUT IN PUBLIC; SOME RANGE IN DIFFERENCE QUITE NOTICEABLY - THEN ADD DIFFERENT FLESH, THIN, BULKY, COURSE, SMOOTH, THICK OR THIN LIPS AND ETC. AND THE POINT THE AUTHOR IS MAKING HOLD TRUE TODAY, AS IT HAS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS - Keith Hunt)
ourselves in point of evolution, and the characters of the head and cranium reflect their moral and spiritual potentiality. This was a race of warriors, of hunters, of painters and sculptors by far superior to any of their predecessors. The method adopted by those who are attempting to fill in the gap between man and brute from the evidence of human fossil remains should be clearly understood. Human beings vary in appearance because of racial peculiarities,
133 Antiquity of Man, page 159.
134 Revised 1923 Guide Leaflet, No. 52. American Museum of
customs, diseases. Sex and age, not readily determmed in fossil remains, determine to a great extent the size of the skull. Certain uncivilized tribes have had a custom of flattening the head of the child in its early years. Imbecility is a cause of abnormally large, abnormally small, or otherwise abnormally shaped skulls. The heads of pigmies, true men, are much smaller than the average human skull, being about 900 c.c. Some men have high foreheads. Some men have low and slanting foreheads. Yet the latter
Fig. 50. Front and side views of two human beings whose skulls would make good proofs of human evolution if they were, found in some ancient burial ground. Observe the low, slanting brow of the white man at the top, and the Neanderthal character of forehead—heavy supra-orbital arch of the negro at the bottom (see arrow). A big supra-orbital bone merely means that there is a large sinus within. It is these types of human skulls which, when discovered by evolutionists, are used for propaganda purposes, while remains of equal age, but having more noble brows, are "placed to one side" and forgotten. Even better examples of this sort can be found among intelligent Americans.
may have as great intelligence as the former.135 If therefore a man were seeking, as some are, for evidences of the evolution of man from the ape, it would not be difficult for him to find it among acknowledged human remains, by searching among the graveyards of men, rejecting those skulls with high, intelligent-looking foreheads, selecting those shaped so as to serve their purpose, and assigning to them the respective remote ages which their degree of
Fig. 51. Left—Skull of the Cro-Magnon Man, after the restoration by Prof. Rutot of Brussels. Right—Profile of Charles Darwin. The importance of this comparison is to show that 30,000 years ago, which is when the evolutionists say the Cro-Magnons entered Europe and drove out the Neanderthals, men were living with higher foreheads than those possessed by many brilliant men of modern times (see Lafayette, Fig. 49), higher and nobler even than that of the "intellectual giant," Charles Darwin.
ape-likeness permits. This is the actual method adopted by evolutionists. Out of the graveyards of Europe, when men of Europe were in a state of barbarism similar to that of our American Indian a hundred and fifty years ago, have been unearthed a very considerable number of human remains. Those mentioned in works of evolutionists, such as Osborn's Men of the Old Stone Age, or Hrdlicka's
135 The evolutionist, Hrdlicka, himself a man with a low forehead, insisted that concrete evidence showed that height of forehead is no index to intelligence—men with low brows having just as high I.Q. on the average as those with high foreheads. See Smithsonian Institute Report, 1933, pages 406-07.
Skeletal Remains of Early Man, are only a few, carefully selected, of the whole number of remains discovered, remains which, as far as there is any evidence to the contrary, all belonged to men of the same age, i.e., the glacial period. These ancient remains are not all alike. They differ from one another as human skeletons differ today. Referring to the period when the Neanderthal man lived, Hrdlicka speaks of the "great variability in the skeletal remains of
Fig. 52. Chinook (Flat-head) Indians, after Catlin. The practice of flattening the human skull is of high antiquity. Low foreheads in ancient human remains may have been caused by artificial means or disease.
this time." 136 Those ancient human remains, therefore, that more closely fulfill the requirements of a link between man and his supposed ape-ancestors have been taken, measured, reconstructed, replicaed, and placed in glass cases for exhibition. Those that have not fulfilled the requirements have been "temporarily placed to one side." That this is in fact the actual "scientific" method, by which the gap between man and the brute has been narrowed is evident from the following words of Osborn:
136 New York Times, Nov. 9, 1927.
"Many finds which have failed to satisfy the demands of science (i. e., evolutionary science) on one or more of the points of geological position, associated animal remains, associated implements of human manufacture, and morphological form (i. e., shape) have been temporarily placed to one side, to await the possibility of future discoveries throwing some light on their position." 137 The same laying aside of unfavorable human remains of the same age with those selected is also apparent from the statement of Hrdlicka.138 "In addition to the more important skeletal remains of early man dealt with in the preceding pages, there exist a considerable number of specimens which, because of their isolated or defective nature, are of less value (for evolutionary purposes) to science, or which have not as yet been properly studied and determined, or which, finally, retain some elements of uncertainty as to their true position in human chronology. And besides these there is a large additional series of skeletal remains . . . which, while ancient, are nevertheless relatively near to man of the present date."
There is no sure way by which certain of those ancient human bones can be assigned to men who were "relatively near to man of the present date" while other ancient bones are assigned to men who were relatively far from man of the present date, except within very narrow limits. There is nothing in the places where the remains are found to make this possible. Few ancient burial places bear unmistakable marks of being either older or younger than others. There is nothing in the condition of the bones themselves. The fact that some bones are mineralized more than others is no criterion, for human bones buried in moist places are known to become heavily mineralized in a very few 3 years. The flints and stone implements accompanying some human remains offer no basis of determination, for while George Washington was using silver knives and forks for eating, and using fire-arms in war in one part of the American continent, there were
137 Taken by Prof. George McCready Price from a card in a show-case in the American Museum of Natural History, 1922. See New Geology, by Price, page 704.
138 Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913, page 548.
Indians, true men, who were using flints and axes of stone in another part. In Zululand, in Africa, there exist today, overgrown with vines and underbrush, the ruins of once magnificent stone buildings, where now the natives live in grass houses and use spears and bows for weapons. At the present time, while half the world lives on a high plane of civilization, there are men who are living in the "stone age" There is small basis for saying, as the evolutionists
Fig. 53. Art work done by men properly estimated by evolutionists to have lived 20-25,000 years ago. The figures were printed in red, black, and brown, and, because of the almost complete absence of light in the cavern, the colors are as vivid as if recently applied. How many men of today could duplicate the work?
Copyright, National Geograpliical Society. Reproduced by special permission.
do, that the Neanderthal race was far older than the Cro-Magnons. The two may, for all the evidence to the contrary, have been practically contemporary. The way in which men like Hrdlicka assign to the recovered skulls and bones their respective places as relatively near or far from the present date is to make the assumption that man has evolved slowly from some ape-form, and then give to those bones that have the more unintelligent aspect the more remote position and those that have the more intelligent aspect the more near position. This, however, is purely arbitrary and foolish.
It may well be granted by the lover of the Scriptures that man has a greater antiquity than the commonly supposed 4000 B.C. It is the conviction of the writer that the genealogies of the Bible form no basis whatever, for fixing the date of the creation of Adam. It is his belief that the genealogies of the Old Testament were meant to teach not lengths but lines of descent. For all the Scriptures testify to the contrary, man may be 50,000 or 100,000 years old. No one knows how old man is.138a
I AGREE FULLY WITH THE AUTHOR HERE: THE SO-CALLED CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE IS NOT SO AS TO PROVE MAN WAS CREATED ABOUT 4,000 B.C. TRYING TO PROVE THAT FROM THE BIBLE IS A FOLLY. FURTHER MORE THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH GOD IS WORKING ON A 7,000 YEAR PLAN; THAT ALSO IS THE MISAPPLYING OF SCRIPTURE. THE PROOF: IF MAN WAS CREATED 4004, B.C. THEN WE ARE INTO THE 7TH MILLENNIUM; THE PROPHESIED "AGE TO COME" OF THE 1,000 YEAR REIGN OF CHRIST ON EARTH. ALL OF WHICH IS TOTAL NONSENSE. SO
BISHOP USHER WAS INCORRECT IN TRYING TO SAY THE BIBLE CHRONOLOGY PUTS THE CREATION OF MAN AS 4004 B.C. ONE MORE ODEA OF MAN HAS CRASHED TO THE GROUND. MAN HAS INDEED BEEN ON EARTH WAY LONGER THAT 6,000 YEARS; HENCE THE BOOK "SECRETS OF LOST RACES" SHOWS MAN HAD AN AGE BEFORE THE FLOOD OF NOAH AND THE TOWER OF BABEL, WHERE MANKIND WAS VERY ADVANCED. MAKE SURE YOU READ THE BOOK "SECRETS OF LOST RACES" ON THIS WEBSITE, AND BE AMAZED AT ANCIENT HISTORY - Keith Hunt)
THE EFFORT TO FILL IN THE SPIRITUAL GAP BETWEEN MEN AND ANIMALS
Man has a spiritual nature which distinguishes him widely from the dumb brute. But for the consistent evolutionist to account for the distinction, God is not needed. He is not wanted. He cannot be permitted to enter into the process of evolution without acknowledging the principle of a supernatural creation of distinct species to be correct. Since, therefore, any interference in the evolutionary process from a supernatural Divine source is excluded by logical necessity, it is said by evolutionists that the soul of man, like his body, is the product of purely natural operations of the laws of nature.
That there is a wide gap between men and animals in their mental and moral natures has been recognized even by the heathen from Aristotle to the present time. The savage instinctively recognizes the existence of this difference and feels his superiority over the whole animal creation. This feeling of lordship is due to the presence in man of a spiritual nature created after God's image.
It is recognized by evolutionists that the spiritual gulf between man, the crown of creation, and animals must be filled in without recourse to a supernatural power, or be so narrowed that it can be said that the transition from brute instincts and consciousness to human intellectual and moral powers was easily accomplished by the natural forces producing evolution. In seeking to accomplish this task two schools of evolutionary pschologists have sprung up. One is the school which seeks to humanize the brute, raising him up as high as possible in the sphere of intelligence
138a See chapter on Biblical Chronology in Before Abraham.
and morals. The other is the school which seeks to brutize the human, pulling man down if possible until he meets the highest level to which the animal can be raised. The first of these schools is represented by Romanes, who has written Mental Evolution in the Animal World, the second by McCabe, who has written Evolution of Mind. All such attempts to bridge the gap, however, have been unsuccessful.
The practice of humanizing the brute is one that has gone on among men unconsciously for ages and, until the rise of the modern anti-Biblical philosophy of evolution, was without harm. It consists in doing to animals what every little girl does with her dolls, i. e., reads into them her own mental processes. A dog, for example, that has been soundly whipped for taking food from the table, when it is discovered in the act of doing so again, slinks away with its tail between its legs. Whereupon it is said to be "ashamed." Men shift their own mental and moral processes into the brute, attribute to it the power of reason as well as their own feelings.
Stories of animal intelligence are related by the thousands. Dog stories are fascinating and popular reading. As Prof. Thorndike says, "Human folks, as a matter of fact, are eager to find intelligence in animals. They like to." 139 If a stranger visits a home where is kept a dog which has learned to open the gate by jumping up and bumping the latch with its nose, the stranger's first impulse is to credit the dog with intelligence like his own. "A smart dog, that," he will say. Whereupon the owner, who has observed the long process of irrational jumping, scratching, and howling at the gate, the thwarted random efforts in every direction, the final accidental hitting of the latch and the resultant success, will rather disgustingly grunt, "Uh-uh." An excited little chick, feeding, may peck at a wasp and get stung. Its abstinence from pecking wasps in the future is likely to be attributed to such a logical syllogism as this, "That object has a striking resemblance to the thing that stung me yesterday. Now I don't want to be stung today, therefore I shall leave
139 Animal Intelligence, page 24.
that thing alone." The one who so attributes reasoning-powers to the little creature may not know, however, that chicks are instinctively afraid of wasps when they recognize them as such. To illustrate the marvelous intelligence characteristic of animal species tales are told of long journeys home made by domestic creatures which have been lost. Nothing, however, is said about the countless examples of animal stupidity, of their mechanical and thoughtless lives, of their fundamental bestial natures. "Thousands of cats on thousands of occasions sit helplessly yowling and no one takes thought of it to write to his friend, the professor; but let one claw at the knob of a door supposedly in order to be let out, and straight-way this cat becomes the representative of the cat mind in all books." 140
It is, however, when this humanizing of the brute, this shifting of the human range of thought into the brain of the animal, is done for the purpose of overthrowing the Bible that it must be exposed and opposed. It is impossible to trace any marked gradations of intelligence through the animals to man. The ape is no more essentially intelligent than the cat or dog. Being more physically active and restless than the dog or cat, and having a structure of fore and hind feet that permits him to make a greater variety of physical movements, the monkey can learn to accomplish a greater variety of tricks than the dog or cat. Essentially, however, the ape is no more intelligent. In some respects the ant is superior to either the dog, cat, or ape. No animal, however, has the capacity to reason, by which is meant the capacity to handle abstract ideas. As Prof. F. O. Jenkins says,141 "What dog or ape that warms himself by the fire and has seen wood put onto it time and again ever has sense enough to bring sticks of wood to it himself when he sees it dying out and feels himself getting cold?" To which might be added what dog or ape would ever have sense enough to make a match, or to perform acts based on algebra or geometry, or have the impulse to build
140 Thorndike, Animal Intelligence, page 25.
141 Princeton Theological Review, April, 1924. Prof. Jenkins is
the only anti-evolutionist quoted in this book.
temples and bury the dead? The conclusion of Prof. Thorndike,142 after years spent in the study of animal psychology including two years when he had under personal observation three monkeys, is worth notice. It is this, "There is also in the case of the monkey as in that of the other animals positive evidence of the absence of any general function of reasoning" 143
(THE WRITER DOES NOT KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT "THE SPIRIT IN MAN" [NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT] THAT GOES BACK TO GOD AT DEATH [ECC. 12:9]; NOR THE SPIRIT IN THE BEAST. SOME HOWEVER GOD HAS DONE IT, CAN DO SOME FORM OF REASONING, AS LIKE CERTAIN PARROTS AND SOME OTHER BIRDS, ALSO THE DOLPHIN, SOME HORSES [NOT ALL] HAVE A KIND OF REASONING POWER; BUT STILL THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE FROM MANKIND. NO ANIMAL IS EVER GOING TO REASON BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL, OR EVER WRITE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, DELVE INTO SCIENCE, BUILD STUFF THAT CAN TAKE THEM TO THE MOON, AND ETC. - Keith Hunt)
The other method of filling the gap, i. e., brutizing man, is a practice of recent origin. It sprang up with the theory of biological evolution. It consists in citing those instances in which members of the human race have become basely degraded and live in a coarse and rude state of barbarism, claiming that these men have small intellectual and moral powers and represent stages of evolution but little removed from the brute. Often cited as an example of this is that savage tribe of men called the Tasmanians, which became extinct fifty years ago, of whom it is said, they could not count and had practically no language. McCabe, an evolutionist most active in attempting to fill the gap between animal and man, admits that the Tasmanians died out "before exact and searching inquiry was made into their qualities." 144
Having read in an earlier edition of this book about McCabe's views, Rev. H. G. Scholefield of Australia wrote to the author as follows: "As one whose ancestors had something to do with these people, I am in a position to state that it is not true to say that they could not count; they counted in series of tens, and could estimate accurately the number of sheep in a flock. I have carefully examined the plaster cast of the head of Truganini, the last of the Tasmanian blacks, and can understand why Prof. Baldwin Spencer, who knew more about the blacks both in Tasmania and on the mainland of Australia than any other anthropologist, described her as having been a woman of fairly high intelligence. It is just as well that McCabe admitted that the Tasmanians died out before exact and searching inquiry was made into their qualities, for the
142 Prof, of Psychology in Columbia University.
143 Columbia University Contributions to Philosophy, Psychology, and Education, page 14.
144 Evolution of Mind, page 265.
recent researches into the habits and culture of the Australian blacks, both in Tasmania and on the mainland, confirm the truth of the following statement by the writer of an article 'Australia' in Chambers Encylopedia: "Nothing is more common, or more condemnable among writers on Australia, than the careless adoption of ill-informed and unobservant descriptions of the 'blackfellow' given by early white settlers. Given a community cut off from the world while still in the hunter stage of civilization, and pent in a country none of whose animals lend themselves to domestication, it is hardly possible to conceive of a way of living more skillfully and intelligently adapted to the environment than is that of the native Australian uninfluenced by the white invasion. McCabe is welcome to any help for his theory he can get by studying the Australian aborigines. Given a like environment, perhaps McCabe would not have risen so high in the scale of civilization as the despised Tasmanian black."
Potentially all men are alike. The children of the lowest salvage tribes existing, when separated from their native environment and brought under the influence of Christian teachers, become men and women of the noblest human type. Beneath the surface of corruption and degradation into which men have sunk, and there is abundant evidence that the progress of all savage tribes has been downward, not upward, there is that in them which inspired the keen observer Shakespeare to say "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals" 145
In spite of every effort of evolutionists to fill the mental and spiritual gap between man and the brute, this gulf, like the physiological gulf, remains. This fact is acknowledged by so prominent an evolutionist as Vernon Kellogg, who, writing in World's Work for March, 1926, in an article entitled "Some Things Science Doesn't Know," says there are things scientific men cannot explain. They are the origin of life, the causes of evolution, and the cause
145 Hamlet, Act II, Scene II.
of the spiritual gap between man and the brute. The existence of this gulf he admits. He cannot, however, as a thorough-going evolutionist, admit the existence of it to be due to a supernatural, creative act of God, for to do so would open the door for a flood of creative acts between species which could not logically be kept out.
Romanes was the great apostle at the opening of this century of the evolution of the human spirit from animal instincts. His work on the evolution of animal intelligence is a classic among evolutionists of this day and is much read and quoted by them. Few who read his book and are influenced by it, however, are aware of the fact that in the closing days of his life Romanes renounced all he had said and acknowledged his spiritual endowment to be due to a creative act of God. Before Romanes died he returned to a full Christian belief.146
(AS GOD'S WORD SAYS: "ONLY THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD." EVEN DARWIN WAS READING HIS BIBLE AND SAID TO THE WOMAN LOOKING AFTER HIM ON HIS DEATH BED, "I WAS YOUNG AND MY MIND WAS WANDERING; I NEVER EXPECTED THEY WOULD RUN THE WAY THEY DID WITH MY WRITING." - Keith Hunt)
The "missing-links" are unsatisfactory evidences of human evolution because (1) too much suspicion and uncertainty surrounds them, (2) only those ancient human remains that serve the evolutionary purpose are offered as proofs. Those ancient human remains that work against the theory of evolution are rejected. (3) Those human remains offered as proof of evolution are not essentially different from human skeletons of today.
Consistent evolutionists must explain the origin of the human spirit in the same way they explain the origin of the human body.
The evolutionist seeks to fill the spiritual gap between man and the brute by (1) seeking to raise the brute to the level of man by attributing to the brute human, spiritual powers (the attempt fails because the brute cannot be shown to have those powers), and (2) by seeking to pull man down to the level of the brute by pointing out the brutishness of certain savage tribes. The baseness of low heathen peoples, however, is due to a fall from a higher moral and intellectual plane to a lower one. The basest savages are truly human.
146 See Life and Letters by his wife.
(THERE IS A "SPIRT" IN MAN AND IN THE BEASTS. THE SPIRIT IN MAN TOGETHER WITH A NORMAL MIND, GIVE HIM INTELLECT, AND MAKE MANKIND MANKIND; IT SETS THEM APART FROM THE BEASTS OF THE EARTH. THIS IS A MYSTERY THE MIND OF MAN CANNOT FULLY GRASPE, FOR THE BEASTS ALSO HAVE A "SPIRIT" THAT IS AGAIN A MYSTERY, FOR SOME BEASTS HAVE MORE MENTAL POWER THAN OTHERS. THE DVD SET BY NOVA CALLED "THE MIND OF ANIMALS" IS VERY REVEALING, QUITE SURPRISING AS TO WHAT WE ARE FINDING OUT ABOUT SOME CREATURES. I'M A HORSEMAN, SO A SMALL EXAMPLE; MOST HORSES [BEING HEALTHY AND "NORMAL"] WILL USUALLY GO ABOUT THE DAYS WORK YOU HAVE FOR THEM WITH NO ARGUMENT. BUT MY HORSE GOLDIE [A REGISTERED QUARTER HORSE] IS SOMETIMES UNIQUE. ONE SUMMER DAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHILDREN'S HORSE CAMP, EATING HER SPECIAL BREAKFAST I MIX FOR HER; HEALTHY AND NORMAL. I SADDLED HER UP FOR THE DAYS EVENTS. I TURNED HER AROUND TO WALK OUT OF THE SALL; SHE REFUSED TO CONTINUE; I WALKED BACK TO HER HEAD, GAVE IT A RUB, SAID, "WALK" - BUT SHE REFUSED TO MOVE; I DID IT ALL OVER AGAIN, BUT STILL REFUSED TO MOVE. I DID IT THE THIRD TIME; STILL WOULD NOT MOVE AN INCH. SHE GOT IT IN HER HEAD SHE DID NOT WANT TO WORK THIS DAY. I HAD TO SWAT HER HARD ON THE RUMP WITH THE CROP….. THEN SHE WAS WILLING TO MOVE, AND DID HER WORK FOR THE DAY VERY WELL. SO THERE CAN BE "SOMETHING" IN THE MIND OF SOME ANIMALS [THE NOVA DVD SHOWS YOU MUCH MORE] ; THEY HAVE A "SPIRIT" AS DOES MANKIND; BUT THAT SPIRIT IS STILL DIFFERENT, WAY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT MANKIND HAS; NO CREATURE IS GOING TO EVER PRODUCE AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA, OR INVENT A WAY TO FLY TO THE MOON, AS HUMANS HAVE DONE - Keith Hunt)
In the preceding pages all the standards proofs of evolution have been presented and discussed. It may seem to the reader that these proofs are not so impressive as he has been led to expect from the fact that man, highly educated men are evolutionists, and a suspicion may have arisen that the proofs have not been fairly presented. It is well for the lover of the Bible to know, therefore, what is the real reason why many educated men accept evolution as the explanation of the present world of plants and animals. The reason is not the overwhelming nature of the evidence. Many evolutionists grant the weakness of the theory they put forward. But, disliking the philosophy which underlies the idea of creation, and being unable or unwilling, for moral or intellectual reasons, to accept the fact that there exists a God who might have created living species by definite, supernatural, spontaneous acts, these men rule out creation as a possibility, and, having no other choice, are forced to hold that things came by themselves or evolved, in spite of all the difficulties.
That dislike of the idea of creation is in fact the underlying reason for belief in. Evolution by many leading evolutionists is apparent from the following statements of evolutionists. Prof. Louis T. More of the University of Cincinnati says, "When we examine the causes of our belief [in evolution] we find that, excepting our desire to eliminate special creation and, generally, what we call the miraculous, most of them can be considered only as secondary proofs to confirm a theory already advanced." 147 He also says, "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends
147 Dogma of Evolution—lectures delivrered at Princeton University in January, 1925, page 117.
on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation" 148 Prof. Bateson, who, on account of his high standing in the scientific world, often angered his fellow evolutionists by his frank confessions of the weaknesses of the theory, said, "The evolution theory finds its support not in direct observation, but in the difficulty of forming an alternate hypothesis." 149 On one notable occasion 150 Bateson, at the close of an address entitled "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts" in which he had made some surprising acknowledgments of the weakness of the theory, showed his contempt for the Biblical idea of creation in these words, "When such confessions are made, the enemies of science [believers in the Bible are not enemies of science, but of science 'falsely so-called'] see their chance. If we cannot declare here and now how species arose, they will obligingly offer us the solutions with which obscurantism is satisfied (i. e., creation). Let us then proclaim in precise and unmistakable language that our faith in evolution remains unshaken. . . . The obscurantist [a term of derision applied to the creationist] has nothing to suggest which is worth a moment's attention." And on still another occasion 151 he said what unavoidably arouses the suspicion that the advocacy by some scientific men of the theory of evolution as against the truth of the Bible has somewhat of a moral basis. While speaking on heredity, but upholding throughout his address the idea of evolution, Bateson said, "Whether we like it or not, extraordinary and far-reaching changes in public opinion are coming to pass. Man is just beginning to know himself for what he is—a rather long-lived animal, with great powers of enjoyment if he does not deliberately forego them. Hitherto superstition and mythical ideas of sin have predominantly controlled these powers. Mysticism will not die out; for these
148 Dogma of Evolution—lectures delivered at Princeton University in January, 1925, page 304.
149 Materials for the Study of Variation, page 4.
150 An address delivered before the American Association for the
Advancement of Science at Toronto in 1922, Science, Jan. 20, 1922.
151 Presidential address before the British Association for the
Advancement of Science in Australia, 1914. Smithsonian Institute Report, 1915, page 359.
strange fancies knowledge is no cure; but their forms change, and mysticism as a force for the oppression of joy is happily losing its hold on the modern world."
The reference in this quotation is undoubtedly to the Scriptural record of the fall of man and the teaching of the Bible regarding sin and its punishment.
A word in conclusion on the relation of the theory of evolution to the religion of the Bible might not be considered amiss. Two opposing philosophies meet when the philosophy of evolution and the philosophy of Biblical Christianity come together, and it may be said that no mental gymnastics, however skilful, can ever reconcile the two. They lock horns at every turn.
Biblical Christianity has as its chief cornerstone the existence of a personal, Divine Being, who has in various ways and at sundry times broken into the ordinary course of nature with supernatural manifestations of His power, and who can at any time break in again. This is the sine qua non of orthodox Christianity. The philosophy of evolution, however, has no welcome place for the supernatural. While Divine interference in the process of evolution is required at the present time for a satisfactory explanation of the origin of life and the human soul, and is called in by certain evolutionists to help the theory over hard places, the tendency is to rule out any such outside interference entirety. In the words of the evolutionist, August Weismann, "The conception of an evolution of life upon the earth reaches far beyond the bounds of any single science and influences our whole realm of thought. It means nothing less than the elimination of the miraculous from our knowledge of nature." 152
According to Biblical Christianity the human race began its existence as a single pair created in a state of moral and physical perfection. This state of perfection was lost to the race when the first pair disobeyed the injunctions of the Creator. According to Biblical Christianity evil acts committed by man are the fruits of moral depravity, and whosoever commits them is guilty and punishable by God. In the light of the theory of evolution
152 Locy, Biology and Its Makers, page 367.
Fig.54. Christian Doctrine: Man was created perfect in body and spirit. Through sin man's original perfection was lost and man is now a "fallen" creature. Salvation is individual, through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. The consummatior of all earthly affairs is judgment.
Fig.55. Evolutionary Doctrine: Humanity's progress has ever been upward. Physically and spiritually man is at the highest point in human history. There has been no "fall"; consequently there is no need for a redeemer. Since the natural process which evolution is can not produce a supernatural, immortal spirit there is no individual salvation.
however, mankind is today at the highest point in its history. Man is the nearest to moral perfection he has ever been, and is steadily improving. What the orthodox Christian calls sin is, in the light of evolution, mere error or shortcoming due to incompletion in man's make-up. Evolutionary philosophy would change the Bible statement "The soul that sinneth it shall die" to read: "The soul that sinneth is striving for higher life."
Biblical Christianity answers the question which Jesus asked the Pharisees, "If David called him [i. e., the Christ] Lord, how is he his son" by answering that Jesus Christ is the God of David, and his son also, because Jesus Christ is the God-man, Creator and creature united in one mysterious person by the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit through a virgin birth. Since, however, nothing so supernatural as a virgin birth is consistently allowed in world affairs by evolutionary philosophy, he who is called Jesus Christ can at best be but a man like unto his brethren, the product of the same evolutionary operation by which they were produced. By the same necessary—-that of excluding supernatural interferences in natural processes—the resurrection and ascension of Jesus is also excluded. Nor can He, by the same token, be the object of God's wrath, self-substituted to bear the guilt and punishment of men, but must be merely an example to the race to lead it on in evolution to a higher hill. In fact, an atoning Savior is not needed in evolutionary doctrine.
According to Biblical Christianity the Bible is a supernatural revelation of God, given to men through human instruments, of things mankind could only vaguely surmise. Were they not revealed. It is a Divine revelation to man of the origin, present condition, and destiny of the human race. Without this Word of God man is left to his own ever-changing speculations for guidance upon the sea of existence. According to the philosophy of evolution the Bible is no more supernatural or inspired than the works of Emerson or Shakespeare. The teachings it contains are merely the conclusions of men of an untutored age concerning things on which the light of modern intelligence had not been shed.
Here is the crux of the whole matter. Is the Bible the word of man or the Word of God? We contend for the latter and say that if the Bible is not inspired, it is truly remarkable that an untutored man like Moses, never having attended a modern university, said to have been scarcely more than a savage, living in an unscientific age, should state a biological principle of heredity so in accord with the latest scientific biological discoveries. "After its kind, whose seed is in itself" is as good an expression of the central principle of Mendel's Laws as can be made. It is no small task to explain satisfactorily why a writer of so remote a day as that in which the writer of the Book of Genesis lived, if he were not inspired from an outside source to do so, should go to the trouble of repeating eight times in half a chapter the biological rule that species were created to reproduce only themselves. Christian believers can rest their case for the inspiration of the Bible and the truth of Christianity on the words of Genesis, "After its kind."
YES AS WE HAVE STATED, THE HORSE [MANY VARIETIES BUT STILL HORSES] DO NOT THINK OF BREEDING TO A COW; THE DOG [MANY VARIETIES] NEVER THINKS TO BREED TO A CAT; THE BIRD [MANY VARIETIES] NEVER THINK TO BREED TO A MOUSE; AND ON AND ON WE COULD GO WITH HUNDREDS MORE EXAMPLES. THE HORSE NEVER MUTATES INTO A COW; A COW NEVER MUTATES INTO A HORSE; AND ON AND ON WE COULD GO WITH THOSE EXAMPLES.
THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO HAVE GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE, DO SO BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE HIM TELL THEM HOW TO LIVE, WHAT IS RIGHT FROM WRONG; AND THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE FOR THE ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS AND THE EVIL-LUTIONISTS.
TO BE CONTINUED WITH IN-DEPTH APPENDIX