"It is not the facts that do harm"; rather it is the "forced conclusions unsupported by fact that does harm"........ but guesses are not science; hypotheses such as the hypothesis of evolution are not truths."
Are those who reject evolution as
an unproved hypothesis unreasonable in refusing to accept, as
conclusive, the evidence offered by evolutionists in support of
a proposition that links every living thing in blood relationship
to every other living thing-the rose to the onion, the eagle to
the mosquito, the mockingbird to the rattlesnake, the royal palm
to the scrub oak, and man to all? Surely, so astounding a proposition
should be supported by facts before it becomes binding upon the
judgment of a rational being.
It is not unusual for evolutionists to declare that their hypothesis
is as clearly established as the law of gravitation or the roundness
of the earth. Yet anyone can prove that anything heavier than
air, when thrown up into the air, will fall to the ground; anyone
can demonstrate the roundness of the earth by traveling around
it.
But how about the doctrine that all
of the species (Darwin estimated the number at from two to three
million-the lowest estimate is one million, about a half million
of which have been tabulated) by the operation of interior, resident
forces came by slow and gradual development from one or a few
germs of life, which appeared on this planet millions of years
ago-the estimates varying according to the vigor of the guesser's
imagination and the number of ciphers he has left in his basket?
Can that proposition be demonstrated by every one like the law
of gravitation or the roundness of the earth?
On the contrary, no one has ever been able to trace one single
species to another. Darwin admitted that no species had ever been
traced to another, but he thought his hypothesis should be accepted
even though the "missing links" had not been found.
He did not say link, as some seem to think, but links. If there
is such a thing as evolution, it is not just one link, the link
between man and the lower forms of life-that is missing, but all
the millions of links between millions of species. Our case is
even stronger; it has been pointed out that evolution, if there
is such a force, would act so slowly that there would be an infinite
number of links between each two species; or a million times a
million links in all, every one of which is missing.
Thomas Huxley also asserted that no species had ever been traced
to another; and, while a friend of Darwin, declared that until
some species could be traced to another, Darwin's hypothesis did
not rise to the dignity of a theory. Prof. William Bateson, a
London biologist, prominent enough to be invited to cross the
Atlantic and speak to the members of the American Society for
the Advancement of Science, at Toronto two years ago last December,
in discussing evolution, took up every effort that had been made
to discover the origin of species, and declared that every one
had failed-every one! Yet he still asserted faith in evolution,
showing how much easier it is for some scientists to have faith
along their own line of work than along religious lines.
Why should we believe that all species come one from another when
no evidence has yet been found to prove that any species came
from another? If evolution were true, every square foot of the
earth's surface would teem with conclusive proof of change. The
entire absence of proof is the strongest possible proof that evolution
is a myth.
But those who reject evolution have another proof. Chemistry refutes
all the claims of the evolutionists, and proves that there is
no pushing power to be found anywhere in nature-no progressive
force at work in the earth-no eternal urge lifting matter or life
from any plane to a higher one. Chemistry has failed to find any
trace of force active enough to raise life, step by step up, along
the lines of the family tree imagined by Darwin, from "A
group of marine animals, resembling the larvae of existing ascidians"
to "Man, the wonder and glory of the universe."
On the contrary, the only active force
discovered on the planet as pointed out by Edwin Slosson, is deterioration,
decay, death. All the formulae of chemistry are exact and permanent.
They leave no room for the guesses upon which evolutionists build
other guesses, ad infinitum. Take water, for instance; it must
have been on earth before any living thing appeared, because it
is the daily need of every living thing. And it has been H20 from
the beginning. Every one of the millions of changes of species
imagined by the evolutionists have taken place-if they have taken
place at all-since water came upon the earth. But water has not
changed; neither has anything else ever changed, so far as nature
has revealed her processes to man. (point: some say water has
not changed because it is not "alive", yet the same
argument can be used to point out the fallacy of life coming to
life from nonlife.)
When a few bones and a piece of skull
are fashioned into a supposed likeness of a prehistoric animal,
described as an ape-man, the evolutionists fall down before it
and worship it, although it contains a smaller percentage of fact
than the one-half percent alcohol permitted in a legal beverage....
Someone searching for fossils in a sand hill in Nebraska came
upon a lonely tooth. The body of the animal had disappeared; not
even a jaw bone survived. Professor Osborn summoned a few congenial
spirits, nearly as credulous as himself, and they held a post
mortuum examination on this insignificant tooth. After due deliberation,
they announced that the tooth was the long-looked-for missing
link which the world awaited.
Give science a fact and it is invincible.
But no one can guess more wildly than a scientist, when he has
no compass but his imagination, and no purpose but to get away
from God. Darwin uses the phrase "we may well suppose"
800 times and wins for himself a high place among the unconscious
humorists by his efforts to explain things that are not true.
For instance, he assumed that man has a brain superior to woman's
brain, and tried to explain it on the theory that our ancestors
were brutes and that the males, fighting for female mates, increased
their brain power. He also assumed that our ancestors were hairy
animals, and tried to explain the disappearance of the hair on
the theory that the females selected their companions and, because
of a universal preference, selected the least hairy and thus,
in the course of ages, bred the hair off. The two explanations
would be funny enough, even if each did not make the other impossible-the
two sexes could not do the selecting at the same time.
Evolutionists also explain to us that
light, beating on the skin, brought out the eye, although the
explanation does not tell us why the light waves did not continue
to beat until they brought out eyes all over the body. They also
tell us that the leg is a development from a wart that accidentally
appeared on the belly of a legless animal; and that we dream of
falling because our ancestors fell out of trees 50,000 years ago.
It is a calamity that highly educated men should while away their time in idle speculation instead of devoting themselves to the serious problems that demand solution.
It is interesting to note Mr. Bryan's sarcastic critique of the famous tooth which Henry Fairfeld Osborn, Director of the American Museum of Natural History, had publicized far and wide as the ancient "Nebraska Man." Mr. Bryan died shortly before the discovery of a more complete skeleton of the creature, revealing it to have been not an ape-man (nor an ape, nor a man!) but an extinct pig!