The Evolution Of Man Scientifically Disproved

W >> William A. Williams >> The Evolution Of Man Scientifically Disproved

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

"Romanes, a disciple of Darwin, after collecting the manifestations of
intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals,
found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15
months old." Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to
reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much
conscience. Why have not many species filled the great gap between man
and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male?
Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be
males but one? To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found by
evolutionists belong to males except one. Strange! If 3,000,000
pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall
with heads up, save one? The Revolutionary war, out of 3,000,000
people, developed one great military chieftain, but many more
approximating his ability; one or more great statesmen with all
gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others
little inferior; but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or
10,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished
beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far
ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other
species. It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the
measureless distance between the monkey and man. It violates
mathematical probability.

We have a right to expect, in many species and in large numbers, all
gradations of animals between the monkey and man in size, intellect,
and spirituality. Where are the anthropoids and their descendants
alleged to have lived during the 2,000,000 years of man's evolution?
They can not be found living or dead. They never existed. Creation
alone explains the great gap. What signs have we that other species
will ever approximate, equal or surpass man in attainments? Can we
hope that, in the far distant future, a baboon will write an epic
equal to Milton's Paradise Lost, or a bull-frog compose an oratorio
surpassing Handel's Messiah?

We find all gradations of species in size from the largest to the
smallest. Why not the same gradation in _intelligence, conscience
and spirituality_? The difference in brain, capacity and
intelligence between man and the ape is 50% greater than the
difference in size between the elephant and the housefly. There are
many thousands of species to fill the gap in size. Why not many
thousands to fill the greater gap in intelligence? Evidently no
species became human by growth. Many species like the amoeba, and the
microscopic disease germs, have not developed at all but are the same
as ever. Many other species of the lower forms of life have remained
unchanged during the ages. If the tendency is to develop into the
higher forms of life, why do we have so many of those lower forms
which have remained stationary? Growth, development, evolution, is
not, by any means, a universal rule.

Evolution is not universally true in any sense of the term. Why are
not fishes _now_ changing into amphibians, amphibians into
reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and monkeys into man? If
growth, development, evolution, were the rule, there would be no lower
order of animals for all have had sufficient time to develop into the
highest orders. Many have remained the same; some have deteriorated.

And now we have a new amendment to the theory of evolution: We are
told that the huge Saurians (reptiles) overworked the development
idea, and became too large and cumbersome, and hence are now
extinct. Prof. Cope says:--"Retrogression in nature is as well
established as evolution." It seems that man also has, contrary to all
former conceptions, reached the limit of his development, if he has
not already gone too far.

Prof. R. S. Lull says, (Readings p. 95) "Man's physical evolution has
virtually ceased, but in so far as any change is being effected, it is
largely retrogressive. Such changes are: Reduction of hair and teeth,
and of hand skill; and dulling of the senses of sight, smell and
hearing upon which active creatures depend so largely for safety.
That sort of charity which fosters the physically, mentally and
morally feeble, and is thus contrary to the law of natural selection,
must also, in the long run, have an adverse effect upon the race." Too
bad that Christian charity takes care of the feeble, endangering
evolution, and the doctrine that the weak have no rights that the
strong are bound to respect! We are not surprised that Nietzsche,
whose insane philosophy that _might is right_, helped to bring on
the world war, died in an insane asylum.

After all, evolution is not progress and development, but
retrogression and deterioration as well.

But evolutionists, compelled by the requirements of their theory, have
added another amendment, which will seem ridiculous to some:

Environment has had an evolution as well as plants and animals! Having
denied the existence of God, or his active control and interference,
they must account for environment by evolution. Listen:--"Henderson
points out that environment, no less than organisms, has had an
evolution. Water, for example, has a dozen unique properties that
condition life. Carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to life. The
properties of the ocean are so beautifully adjusted to life that we
marvel at the exactness of its fitness. [Yet no design!]. Finally, the
chemical properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are equally unique
and unreplaceable. The evolution of environment and the evolution of
organisms have gone hand in hand." And all by blind chance! Is it not
a thousand times better to believe that all things were created by an
all-wise and all powerful God? How could a lifeless environment come
by evolution? If we would listen to them, we would be told that the
ocean, the atmosphere, heat, light, electricity, all the elements, the
starry heavens, and all the universe, and religion itself, came by
evolution, some grudgingly granting that God _may_ have created
matter in the beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe that one species and only one out of
3,000,000 by evolution should attain the status of mankind; and that
one species and only one species of the primates should reach the
heights of intelligence, reason, conscience and spirituality. Huxley
says, "There is an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite,
between the lowest man and the highest beast."

To declare that our species alone crossed this measureless gulf, while
our nearest relatives have not even made a fair start, is an affront
to the intelligence of the thoughtful student. It does fierce violence
to the doctrine of mathematical probability. It could not have
happened.

10. THE AGE OF THE EARTH

The estimates of the age of the world vary from 16,000,000 years to
100 times this number or 1,600,000,000 years. Even H.G. Wells admits
these estimates "rest nearly always upon theoretical assumptions of
the slenderest kind." This is undoubtedly true of the reckless
estimates of evolutionists, whose theory requires such an enormous
length of time that science can not concede it. Prof. H.H. Newman
says, "The last decade has seen the demise (?) of the outworn (?)
objection to evolution, based on the idea that there has not been time
enough for the great changes that are believed by evolutionists to
have occurred. Given 100,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years since life
began we can then allow 1,000,000 years for each important change to
arise and establish itself."

An objection is not "outworn" until answered, and to speak of the
demise of a generally accepted theory is hardly scientific. We will
not allow the evolutionist to dismiss so weighty an objection with a
wave of the hand. Prof. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution,"
p. 68, gives 60,000,000 years as the probable time since life began.
The writer, having based arguments upon that assumption, was surprised
to receive a private letter from him claiming that life has existed
for 500,000,000 years. Indeed Prof. Russell, of Princeton, says, in
his "Rice Lectures," that the earth is probably 4,000,000,000 years
old, possibly 8,000,000,000! We can do nothing but gasp, while the
bewildering guesses come in, and we wait for the next estimate. We
note their utter abandon, as they make a raid on God's eternity to
support a theory that would dethrone Him.

But these extravagantly long periods required by the theory, science
cannot grant, for the following reasons:--

1. According to the nebular hypothesis, and Helmholtz's contraction
theory, accounting for the regular supply of heat from the sun, the
sun itself is not likely more than 20,000,000 years old, and, of
course, the earth is much younger. Both of these theories are quite
generally accepted by scientists, and have much to support them.
Prof. Young, of Princeton, in his Astronomy, p. 156, says, "The solar
radiation can be accounted for on the hypothesis first proposed by
Helmholtz, that the sun is shrinking slowly but continually. It is a
matter of demonstration that an annual shrinkage of about 300 feet in
the sun's diameter would liberate sufficient heat to keep up its
radiation without any fall in its temperature".... The sun is not
simply cooling, nor is its heat caused by combustion; for, "If the sun
were a vast globe of solid anthracite, in less than 5,000 years, it
would be burned to a cinder." We quote from Prof. Young's Astronomy:
"We can only say that while no other theory yet proposed meets the
conditions of the problem, this [contraction theory] appears to do so
perfectly, and therefore has high probability in its favor." "No
conclusion of Geometry," he continues, "is more certain than
this,--that the shrinkage of the sun to its present dimensions, from a
diameter larger than that of the orbit of Neptune, the remotest of the
planets, _would generate about 18,000,000 times as much heat as the
sun now radiates in a year_. Hence, if the sun's heat has been and
still is wholly due to the contraction of its mass, it can not have
been radiating heat at the present rate, on the shrinkage hypothesis,
for more than 18,000,000 years; and on that hypothesis, the solar
system in anything like its present condition, can not be much more
than as old as that." If so, evolution, on account of lack of time,
can not possibly be true. If we add many millions of years to this
number, or double it more than once, the time is not yet
sufficient. For if the sun is 25,000,000, or even 50,000,000 years
old, by the time the planets are thrown off, in turn, from Neptune to
the earth, and then the earth cooled sufficiently for animal life,
only a few million years would be left for evolution, a mere fraction
of the time required. This is a mathematical demonstration that
evolution can not be true. The same calculations, 18,000,000 to
20,000,000 years, have been made by Lord Kelvin, Prof. Todd and other
astronomers.

2. The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the
great age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperature
increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50
feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil;
at 18 mi., glass would melt (1850 deg.); at 28 mi., every known substance
would melt (2700 deg.). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles
thick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if
the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the
San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the
crust is 21.91 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380
years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's
age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210
years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have
elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the
few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render
evolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of the
earth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of
the earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and
the 9000 tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of
the world.

3. The surface marks on the earth point to much shorter periods of
time since the earth was a shoreless ocean than those required by
evolutionists, who are so reckless in their guesses and
estimates. They help themselves to eternity without stint. Charles
Lyell, a geologist of Darwin's time, set the example when he said,
"The lowest estimate of time required for the formation of the
existing delta of the Mississippi is 100,000 years." According to
careful examination made by gentlemen of the Coast Survey and other
U.S. officers, the time was 4,400 years--a disinterested decision. In
the face of these three arguments, it is a bit reckless to say the
earth has existed, 1,600,000,000 years,--nearly 100 times as long as
proven possible by mathematical calculation. And still more reckless
is the estimate of Prof. Russell, 4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000
years, founded on the radio-activity theory. All these wild estimates
are out of the question.

The recession of the Niagara Falls from Lake Ontario required only
7,000 to 11,000 years. It required only 8,000 years for the
Mississippi River to excavate its course.

Prof. Winchell estimates that the Mississippi River, has worn a gorge
100 feet deep, 8 miles long, back to the Falls of St. Anthony, in
about 8,000 years. The whole thickness of the Nile sediment, 40 feet
in one place, was deposited in about 13,000 years. Calculations by
Southall and others from certain strata have fixed man's first
appearance on the earth at 8,000 years, in harmony with Scripture.

LeConte, in his Geology, p. 19, says, "Making due allowance for all
variations, it is probable that all land-surfaces are being cut down
and lowered by rain and river erosion, at a rate of one foot every
5,000 years. At this rate, if we take the mean height of lands as 1200
feet, and there be no antagonistic agency at work raising the land,
all lands would be cut down to the sea level and disappear in
6,000,000 years."

May we not from these data, judge approximately of the age of the
world, and show by this proof also, that the world can not be at all
as old as the evolution theory demands? If the surface of the earth
will be worn down 1200 feet on an average in 6,000,000 years, would it
not also be true that the surface has been worn down at least 1200
feet in the last 6,000,000 years? For the higher the surface, the more
rapid the erosion. And if the earth is 8,302,210 years old, as Lord
Kelvin computes, then at the same rate, it must have been worn down an
average of 1660 feet,--38% more than remains. Is this not a fair
estimate for the amount of erosion and the age of the world? How high
must the land have averaged, if the world is even 60,000,000 years
old?

If this be true, how long would it have taken erosion in the past, to
reduce the land to its present configuration,--the short period
indicated by science, or the immensely long period required by
evolution?

But the evolutionists are clinging to the radio-activity theory
desperately, an S.O.S. of a lost cause, depending, like evolution, on
a great many assumptions, and unproven hypotheses. The assumption is
that a radio-active substance, like uranium, "decays," or passes into
many other substances, of which radium is one, finally producing lead
in 1,000,000,000 years or more. From this theory, Prof. Russell
concludes that the earth is 4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years old,
and the sun is older still. During this inconceivably long period, the
sun was giving out as much heat as at present, which is 2,200,000,000
times as much as the earth receives. The heat of the sun can not be
accounted for, by either the combustion or cooling off theory. By the
commonly accepted contraction theory, the heat has been maintained
only about 20,000,000 years. How could it have been sustained
4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years? Prof. Russell answers: "We must
therefore _suppose_ that energy from an 'unknown source' becomes
available at exceedingly high temperatures.... We can not do more than
_guess_ where it is hidden." Is this scientific? This theory,
moreover, is interlocked with Einstein's theory of Relativity, which
holds that all energy has mass, and all mass is equivalent to
energy. Although 2700 books have been written, pro and con, upon
Einstein's theory, yet he says only 12 men understand it, and a
scientist retorts that Einstein can not be one of the 12. The
contraction theory, the thickness of the cooled crust of the earth,
and the conformation of its surface, all give mathematical proof that
evolution is impossible because of lack of time.

11. GEOLOGY AND HISTORY

During the historical period, the species have remained unchanged. If
over 1,000,000 species of animals have arisen in the 60,000,000 years,
as is claimed, over 2000 of them must have arisen in the last 6,000
years. As evolutionists can not name a single new species that has
arisen within that time, their theory falls to the ground. No species
in that time, has passed into another. No species has been divided
into two or more. No lower species has advanced into a higher. History
gives no scrap of evidence in support of evolution. Even the horse,
whose history has been dubiously traced for 3,000,000 years, has been
a horse unchanged for the last 6,000 years. Even if the missing links
in the development of the horse _could_ be supplied, it would
still be the same species all the while. But there are no
transitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of the
horse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size. Many
varieties and individuals under the skill of man have been developed
and improved, but not a single new species in historic time. There
are 5,000 varieties of apples but no new species. But when the
evolutionist is hard pressed to answer, he takes to the wilds of
eternity where it is hard to pursue him, and to check up on his
guesses. He answers that changes are so slow, and take so many
millions of years, that they can not tell of a single new species in
the last 6,000 years, when over 2,000 are required.

He appeals to Geology, which is history down to historic time,
expecting to take advantage of the ignorance of the careless student.

But Geology will not aid him to prove his reckless theory. Even Darwin
complained that the evidences from Geology were scanty. Geology
testifies: The genera and species of fossil animals are as distinct as
those now living; new species appear at certain epochs entirely
different from those which preceded; often the most perfect specimens
of a new species appear at the beginning of a geologic period rather
than at its close, leaving no room for evolution; no species is shown
changing into another; and many species are largest at the
beginning. As Geology is brought in as a hopeful witness by
evolutionists, they are bound by a well-known principle of law, to
accept the statements of their own witness even though fatal to their
theory.

For them, Geology furnishes sorry evidence concerning the evolution of
man from the brute. The great scheme of evolution claims as its chief
support four geologic "finds." We can not be certain that any one of
these has the slightest evidential value. An ardent evolutionist, Dr.
Dubois, found a few bones, part ape, part human, buried in the river
_sands_, 40 feet deep. They were scattered 50 feet apart, no two
joined together. They called this strange creature pithecanthropus,
and fixed its age at 750,000 years; others reduced it to 375,000
years. These few bones are no doubt from a modern ape and modern man.

The Heidelberg Jaw was also found _in the sand_, and is guessed
to be 700,000 years old. It is hard to be respectful while they
gravely tell such stories. But the next is even worse: The Piltdown
man, alias the Piltdown fake, fabricated out of a few bones of a man
and a few of an ape. It is rejected as a fabrication even by many
evolutionists.

The Neanderthal man lived, they say, about 50,000 years ago. A part of
a skull was found in a cave.

All the bones purporting to belong to these four creatures would not
together make one complete skeleton, or even one complete skull. A
child could carry all this "evidence" in a basket. These skulls can be
duplicated by abnormal skulls in many graveyards today. Scientists are
not certain they belong to the same individual. Part ape, part
human. A desperate effort to get convincing evidence, where there is
none. We can not be certain they lived in the age claimed. Scientists,
even evolutionists, differ widely.

In contrast to this scant and uncertain evidence, Ales Hrdlicka, of
the Smithsonian Institution, speaking of a single locality, says, "Near
Lyons, France, the skeletons of 200,000 prehistoric horses are
scattered. In one cave in Moravia, there are enough mammoth teeth to
fill a small sized hall.... From the Heidelberg man, there is
practically no record for about 200,000 years. The kinship of the
Piltdown Java and Heidelberg man _is open to dispute_. The
Neanderthal man may not have been a direct ancestor, of the species
which produced Shakespeare, Napoleon and Newton." Remains of the
unchanged ape are abundant. But the alleged human remains are scanty
and uncertain.' Now if there were millions and billions of human
beings developing from the brutes, should we not expect as many
remains as of horses and mammoths and apes? We do not have millions of
them, simply because they did not exist. Is not this well nigh a
demonstration?

Shall we, upon this scant and uncertain evidence, accept a theory that
shocks the reason and the moral sense of mankind, and which leads
naturally to infidelity and atheism, and takes away even our hope of
immortality? Later in this volume we will consider more fully the
alleged proofs from these geologic "finds."

Prof. Charles Lyell said: "In the year 1806, the French Institute
enumerated not less than 80 geological theories which were hostile to
the Scriptures; but not one of these theories is held today."

Many have come to the hasty conclusion that there was a continuous
elaboration or a progressive growth among all species. True in some
cases, but by no means universal. Many species have remained stable
for millions of years; many have retrograded and deteriorated. Indeed,
some evolutionists claim man has retrograded.

Many species of animals have been larger than their modern
descendants. Many species show no change. All the bacilli remain the
same microscopic species, even those too microscopic to be seen or
isolated. They multiply the same, and produce the same diseases. How
can there be growth in the microscopic world either animal or
vegetable? The doctrine that there is a development and a growth
among all species of animals or plants, is contradicted by the
facts. If that doctrine were true, there would be no lower order of
animals after so many millions of years of growth. All would have been
large and of a high order like others. Since we find a majority of all
animal species less in size than the fly, there has been little growth
in most species, and in many, none at all. The amoebae, one celled
animals, smaller than a small pin-head, have existed unchanged since
life began. If plants and animals all developed from a one-celled
animal, such as the amoeba, why did not the amoeba develop? Or, if
some developed, why not all? Certainly there would not remain a great
multitude of species in the microscopic world.

Of many species small and large, we have many fossils preserved but
_no transitional forms_. The archaeopteryx, a bird with a
feathered tail, is the only alleged transitional form between the
reptiles and the birds. Only two specimens of this same animal have
been found. This could easily be an exceptional species of created
birds differing no more from the normal bird than the ostrich or
humming bird. If there were transitional forms we ought to have them
by the millions. No transitional forms have been found between
reptiles and mammals; and we have seen that there are no reliable
forms between man and mammals. The numerous missing links make a chain
impossible. Evolution is not simply growth or change, but the
development of all species from one germ.

12. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

Geographical Distribution, another witness claimed by the
evolutionists, bears testimony, which they are bound, in law, to
receive.

We find animals whose power of locomotion is very limited, scattered
all over the world, like the mollusca and crustacea, embracing a large
number of families, genera, and species. It is incredible that these
all originated in one place, and from one germ, and migrated to
distant parts of the world. The oyster, for example, is found in
Europe, Africa, North and South America. There are over 200 species,
found in all warm tempered climates, but none in the coldest
regions. How could they cross the ocean and be distributed along all
continents? They are soon attached to solid rocks, or other supports,
and do not move at all. And if they do, how could they cross thousands
of miles of ocean barren of all food?

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12