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
36. PERSONALITY
An evolutionist writes: "We do not undertake to account for
personality." We reply, "That is a part of your problem. You have
undertaken to solve the riddle of the universe by excluding all
evidence of an existing and active God, and we can not release you
because a feature of the problem may be unusually difficult or
embarrassing, or even fatal to your theory. It is a fight to the death
in the interest of truth; and we purpose to use every weapon of
science against a theory so unscientific, so improbable, so far
reaching, and so baneful in its effects. It takes faith, hope and
comfort from the heart of the Christian, destroys belief in God, and
sends multitudes to the lost world."
Personality is consciousness of individuality. When did personality
begin? When did any members of the species become conscious of
personality? When did they begin to realize and to say in thought, "I
am a living being." What animals are conscious of personality? Any of
our cousins of the monkey tribe? Is the horse conscious of
personality, or the ox, the cat or the dog? If so, does the skunk have
personality, the mouse, the flea, the worm, the tadpole, the
microscopic animal? If so, do our other cousins have personality,--the
trees, the vines, the flowers, the thorn and the brier, the cactus and
the thistle, and the microscopic disease germs? If so, when did
personality begin? With the first primordial germ? If so, were there
two personalities when the germ split in two, and became two, animal
and plant? You can not split a man up into two parts with a
personality to each part. Personality is indivisible. It is a
consciousness of that indivisibility. If personality began anywhere
along the line, where, when, and how did it originate? Was it
spontaneous, or by chance, or was it God-given? Beyond all question,
it was the gift of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator, and in no
sense the product of evolution. God made man a living soul.
But if no plant or animal ever had personality, when did man first
become conscious of his individuality? There is no evidence, of
course, but the evolutionist must produce it, or admit failure. The
evolutionist is short on evidence but long on guesses that miss the
mark.
If all animals and plants came from one germ, why do animals have the
senses, sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing, while plants are
utterly devoid of them? They had a nearly equal chance in the
race. Why the great difference?
37. INTELLECT, EMOTIONS AND WILL
The activity and energy of the soul are shown in the intellect, the
emotions and the will. What evidence of these do we find in the animal
world? Do we find intellect in the lobster, emotions in a worm, or
will in an oyster? Whence came these elements of spiritual strength?
If developed by evolution, where, when, and how?
Have the most advanced species of animals an intellect? Do they have
the emotions of love, hate, envy, pity, remorse or sympathy? Has a
worm envy, a flea hate, a cat pity a hog remorse, or a horse sympathy?
If these existed in so-called pre-historic man, when, where, and how
did they begin? No one can answer, because there is not a trace of
proof that they ever existed.
Will natural selection explain the development of the mental
faculties? Was art developed because those who lacked it perished? Do
we account for the musical faculty, because those who could not sing
perished? Some still live who ought to be dead! Do we account for
humor because they perished who could not crack a joke? Will all
eventually perish but the Irish, who will survive by their wit? Is
anything mentioned in science quite so ridiculous as natural
selection?
Not an animal has a trace of wit, or humor, or pathos. Not an animal
has ever laughed, or spoken, or sung. The silence of the ages
disproves evolution.
38. ABSTRACT REASON
When did reason begin? Do we find it in any species of plant or animal
life, save man? The highest order of animals can not reason enough to
start a fire or replenish one. A dog, or a cat, or even a monkey, will
enjoy the warmth from a fire but will not replenish it, although they
may have seen it done many times. Animals may be taught many
interesting tricks; many can imitate well. But they do not have the
power of reflection or abstract reason. They live for the
present. They have no plans for tomorrow,---no purpose in life. They
can not come to new conclusions. They can not add or subtract,
multiply or divide. They can not even count. Some animals can solve
very intricate problems by instinct, but instinct is the intelligence
of God, and never could have come by evolution.
If reason came not from God, but from evolution, should we not expect
it well developed in evolutionary man, since for the last 3,000,000
years he must have been 95 to 100 per cent, normal. If we grant the
estimate of 500,000,000 years, he would have been 99.4% normal for the
last 3,000,000 years. Would we not expect in that time a world of
inventions and discoveries, even surpassing those of the last 100
years? The Chinese claim a multitude of inventions and a race so
nearly normal as ape-men, ought to have invented language, writing,
printing, the telegraph, phonograph, the wireless, the radio,
television, and even greater wonders than in our age.
There is no trace of intelligence in man in all the 3,000,000 years,
prior to Adam.
We should have many works excelling Homer's Iliad, Vergil's Aeneid,
and Milton's Paradise Lost. We have no trace of a road, or a bridge,
or a monument, like the pyramids. That no race of intelligent
creatures ever lived prior to Adam is proven by lack of affirmative
evidence. If it be true, as Romanes declared, that the power of
abstract reason in all the species was only equal to that of a child
15 months old, then each species would possess less than one millionth
of that.
39. CONSCIENCE
If the origin of the mental faculties can not be accounted for by
evolution, much less can the moral faculty, the religious nature and
spirituality be accounted for.
The most confirmed evolutionist will not claim that the tree or the
vine or the rose, or perhaps any animal, has a conscience. If,
however, conscience is a growth or development, why should it not
exist in some measure in both the animal and the vegetable kingdoms?
Has any brute any idea of right or wrong? Has a hog any idea of right
or wrong, of justice or injustice? What animal has ever shown regret
for a wrong, or approval of right in others? If conscience is a
development within the reach of every species, many of the million or
more, no doubt, would have shown some conscience long ago.
But if man developed conscience, why have not our near relatives of
the monkey family developed a conscience? They had the same chance as
man. Why should man have a conscience, and monkeys none?
Why is there no trace of conscience in the animal or vegetable
kingdom? Because it is the gift of God.
What sign of regret, repentance, or remorse, do we find in the cat or
the dog, the rat or the hog? If a bull gores a sheep to death, does he
express regret? Is a horse sorry if he crushes to death a child or a
chicken under his hoof? Can any animal be sorry for stealing food from
another? Will it take any steps to undo the wrong?
Man, according to evolution, is a creature of environment. He is a
victim of brute impulse. He has no conscience, no free will, he can
commit no crime. Killing is not murder. It is not sin. Man can not be
responsible. Without conscience, a victim of circumstances, rushed on
into crime, sin, and injustice, responsible to no God!
The heart sickens at the brightest picture evolution can paint. The
difficulty of showing the evolution of the body is insuperable, but
the evolution of the soul, with all its mental, moral and spiritual
equipment, is an absolute impossibility. Small wonder that
evolutionists are unwilling to discuss the origin of the soul.
40. SPIRITUALITY
Does any plant or animal worship God? How much theology does a cow
know? What does the horse think about God? What animal lives with an
anxious desire to please God? How many are desirous of obeying God?
How many species trust Him? How many love Him? How many pray to Him?
How many praise Him for his goodness? Evidently no animal knows
anything about God, or ever thinks of worshiping Him.
Man alone worships God. When did he begin? The idea of God seems to be
in the hearts of all except the dupes of evolution, and the
Bolshevists of Russia. The great problem to explain is how the worship
of God began, and why man alone now worships Him.
Personality, reason, intellect, emotions, will, conscience,
spirituality, and all the faculties and equipment of the soul, are
naturally and easily explained upon the basis of creation, but
evolution can not account for them at all.
About 2,000,000 years ago, we are told, man and the monkey family were
children of the same parents. These children headed species with an
even start. Yet man alone developed personality, consciousness,
intelligence, and all the equipment of the soul; all the others
remained stationary. This is incredible. It is inconsistent with
mathematical probability. Is it likely that one species and one alone
out of a million, with similar environments, would reach these high
mental and spiritual attainments? No! "God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him,"-Gen. 1:27. This
declaration explains all the difficulties which are insuperable to the
evolutionist.
"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him."
This likeness was not a physical likeness as a learned (?) university
professor asserted, but a likeness in _knowledge, righteousness and
holiness_. No animal is made in the image of God. There is not the
trace of a soul in all animal creation. How could the soul of man
develop from nothing?
God is still creating new creatures in Christ Jesus, in righteousness
and true holiness, which can not come by evolution, for sinful
creatures can only grow in sinfulness, until the creative power of God
makes them new creatures, as the following study in Eugenics will
show: Elizabeth Tuttle, the grandmother of Jonathan Edwards, the
eminent scholar and divine, was, according to H. E. Walter, a "woman
of great beauty, of tall and commanding appearance, striking carriage,
of strong, extreme intellectual vigor, and mental grasp akin to
rapacity, but _with an extraordinary deficiency in moral sense. She
was divorced from her husband on the ground of adultery and other_
IMMORALITIES. The evil trait was in the blood, for one of her sisters
murdered her own son, and a brother murdered his own sister, As
Richard Edwards, his grandfather, had 5 sons and 1 daughter, by a
second wife, but none of their numerous progeny rose above mediocrity,
and their descendants gained no abiding reputation, Jonathan Edwards
must have owed his remarkable mental qualities largely to his
grandmother rather than his grandfather. He was evidently a new
creation in Christ Jesus and was cured by grace of all inherited
immoralities, so that he became the ancestor of one of the most
remarkable families in the history of the world, as follows:--
"Jonathan Edwards was born in 1703. He was strong in character,
mentally vigorous and fearlessly loyal to duty. In 1900, of the
descendants of Jonathan Edwards, 1394 had been located and the
following information in regard to them had been gathered: College
presidents, 13; college professors, 65; doctors, 60; clergymen,
missionaries, etc., 100; officers in the army and navy, 75; eminent
authors and writers, 60; lawyers, over 100; judges, 30; holders of
public offices, one being vice-president of the United States, 80;
United States senators, 3; managers of railroads, banks, insurance
companies, etc., 15; college graduates, 295; several were governors
and holders of important state offices."
The claim is also made that "almost if not every department of social
progress and of public weal has felt the impulse of this healthy and
long-lived family."
"The 'Jukes' family was founded by a shiftless fisherman born in New
York in 1720, Since that time the family has numbered 1200
persons. The following facts are quoted from the _records_:
Convicted criminals, 130; habitual thieves, 60; murderers, 7; wrecked
by diseases of wickedness, 440; immoral women, fully one-half;
professional paupers, 310; trades learned by twenty, ten of these
learned the trade in prison.
"How much of this expense to the state was due to bad blood we can not
say. If the original Jukeses had become Christians we have no doubt
that the majority of their descendants would have been humble, but
orderly, and possibly useful citizens."
Aaron Burr, a grandson of Jonathan Edwards, lacked but one electoral
vote to become president of the U.S. His intellectual standing in
Princeton was not equaled by another for 100 years.
Jonathan Edwards was a new creation, as is every other regenerated
person.
According to evolution, there can be no new creation. According to
the word of God, and the experience of an innumerable host, God is
continually creating souls anew, who become "new creatures". Evolution
is not in harmony with the Bible nor the experience of the children of
God.
Whenever it can be shown that men become more spiritual when they
accept the theory, and become more devoted to saving souls as their
zeal for the theory increases, the theory will be worthy of more
serious consideration. We await the evidence.
Evolution can not account for the spirituality of man, but tends to
destroy it where it exists.
41. THE HOPE OF IMMORTALITY
The belief in the immortality of the soul has been well nigh
universal, in all ages, and among all nations, and is taught by all
religions. Without it, life and death are insolvable mysteries. A
doctrine so universal, so well established by reason, ought not to be
set aside without the most convincing reasons and the most compelling
evidence. Either this universal belief is due to revelation, or the
abundance of proof appealing to reason, or both.
A child is born, suffers agonies for weeks and months, and dies. If no
future, who can solve the mystery? John Milton writes his immortal
"Paradise Lost," and dies. Must his great soul perish? Nero murdered
his brother, his sister, his wife and his mother, and multitudes of
Christians and lastly himself, and was guilty of a multitude of other
shocking crimes; while many of the best men and women this world ever
knew suffered persecution and martyrdom for doing good and blessing
others. Will they all alike meet the same fate--annihilation--at the
hands of a just God?
The immortality of the soul is supported by science. Science teaches
the indestructibility of matter. Not all the power that man can bring
to bear, can destroy the minutest portion of matter, not a molecule,
not an atom, not an electron. The smallest particle of dust visible to
the eye contains, we are told, about 8,000,000,000 atoms, and each
atom, as complex as a piano,--1740 parts. Not one of these atoms or
parts could be annihilated by all the power of a thousand Niagaras.
In all the multiplied chemical changes everywhere in the world, not a
single particle, the most worthless, is lost or destroyed. Dissolve a
silver dollar in aquafortis, and then precipitate it to the bottom,
and not a particle need be lost. If God takes such scrupulous care of
the most worthless particle of matter, will he suffer the immortal
soul to perish? If he preserves the dust, how much more so the highest
of all his creations, the mind that can write an epic, compose an
oratorio, or liberate a race. Evolution crushes out of the heart the
hope of immortality, and makes man but an improved brute, while Jesus
Christ "hath brought life and immortality to light through the
gospel."
If evolution be true, when did man become immortal? At what period
did he cease to be a brute, and become an immortal soul? Was it before
the days of the pithecanthropus, the Piltdown fraud, the Heidelberg
man, or the Neanderthal man?
The change was ever so slow and gradual; could the parents, anywhere
along the line, be mere brutes and the children immortal human beings?
Would it not be impossible to draw the line? Is it not evident that
the ape-man could never grow into immortality, or into the image of an
infinitely great and glorious God?
If evolutionists _could_ give us any convincing evidence that the
body of man developed from the brute, they can not prove that the soul
grew from nothing to the high mental, moral and spiritual attainments,
into the very image of God, and by its own efforts become as immortal
as God himself.
After all, did any theory as ridiculously untrue as evolution ever
masquerade as science, or ask to be accepted by thoughtful men? Has it
as much to support it as the false sciences of alchemy and astrology?
The brute origin of man, infidelity, agnosticism, modernism, atheism
and bolshevism, are in harmony, and cooperate in robbing man of heaven
and the hope of immortality.
If man believes that he dies as the brute dies, he will soon live as
the brute lives, and all that is precious to the heart of man will be
forever destroyed. We recoil from such a fate, but live in the serene
assurance that such a thing can never be.
42. SIN
Sin is a great fact. It can not be denied. It can not be explained by
evolution. It is universal. Every race all nations, with all grades of
intellect and culture, civilized or uncivilized, are cursed with
sin. All the wrongs, all crimes in the world, all immoralities, are
due to sin. Sin causes tremendous destruction of life, property, and
character. Why is it universal? When did it originate? Did it
originate in all the members of the brute-human race at one time? Did
some become sinners, and others remain without sin? Sin must be
developed, since brutes have no sin. Why not some of the ape-humans
without sin? Does natural selection explain the universal sinfulness
of man, on the ground that those who did not have this "improvement"
perished? They all died and only sinners were left, hence all
survivors are sinners! Sin makes men more fit, and hence sinners only
survive! Is evolution simply ridiculous, or a crime?
When in the "ascent of man" did he become a sinner? A million years
ago? Judging from the pictures of fierce alleged ape-men, it must have
been a long, long time ago. Did all become sinners then? What became
of the progeny of those who had not secured the attainment of sin? Why
have not other members of the monkey family become sinners? Why do we
not hang them for murder? Will they yet attain unto sinfulness?
H. G. Wells, the alleged historian, says, p. 954, Outline of Hist.,
"If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner,
then there had been no first parents, no Eden and no Fall. And, if
there had been no Fall, then the entire historical fabric of
Christianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for an
atonement upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and
morality, collapses like a house of cards."
Evolution claims that man fell up and not down. It denies almost every
truth of religion and the Bible, as well as of experience. "Man is
falling upward, he is his own Savior, he is ever progressing, and has
no need of a Savior." Contrast this with the sublime statements of the
word of God concerning the creation and the fall of man.
Evolution is charged with explaining all phenomena pertaining to
man,--soul and body. It exhausts itself in trying to show that the
body of man may _possibly_ be developed from the brute. It fails
miserably. The problem of accounting for the soul of man with all its
equipment is so much more difficult, that little or no effort is made
to account for it, virtually confessing that the much-exploited theory
of evolution can not possibly be true, when applied to the soul as
well as the body.
43. REDEMPTION
Evolution does not account for sin. Much less does it have any cure
for sin. If sin marks progress or advancement, of course, its cure
would be retrogression. But how can sin be cured? What answer has
evolution? Culture, education, refinement, favorable environment.
These are all desirable, but no cure for sin. Some of the most
cultured, educated and refined, were the greatest monsters that ever
lived. Wholesale murderers like Nero, Alexander and Napoleon, had a
good degree of education and culture. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb,
who murdered Robert Franks in Chicago, were among the most brilliant
graduates of universities. Friends say they were led on to atheism and
crime by the reading of modernist books. No doubt, the doctrine of
evolution, taught so zealously in the universities, played a large
part.
Human efforts and human devices have utterly failed to cure sin. The
human will is too feeble to resist its power.
The Bible, which evolution undermines, teaches us there is a cure for
sin. The divine Son of God saves us from our sins, cleanses and
purifies our natures, and fits us for happiness and service in both
worlds. Jesus offers the only practical plan of salvation from
sin. The Bible plan of redemption is the only plan that works.
Paul, a murderer, with his heart full of malignant hate, and his hands
stained with blood, greedy to imprison men and women, "breathing out
threatening and slaughter," looks to Jesus by simple faith, and is
changed into a gentle and loving Christian, rejoicing in suffering and
persecution. He rose to such heights, by the help of Jesus, that he
loved his enemies, and was willing to be damned, if that would save
their souls. What glorious men the apostles became by the transforming
power of Christ! What grand men and women the long line of martyrs
were. The men and women who have blest the world most, have been
believers in the Bible, and not in evolution. Perhaps a million
martyrs have died for Christ. Where are the martyrs for evolution?
Augustine was redeemed from a life of vice and dissipation, blessed
the world with his writings, and became one of the greatest leaders of
thought in all ages. John Bunyan was so profane that the most vicious
would cross the street to avoid him. The gospel made him one of the
holiest of men. His Pilgrim's Progress has been translated into
hundreds of languages, and read by millions. John G. Woolley was a
maudlin drunkard, intent on taking his own life,--friends, money,
character, and reputation lost,--but was converted and preached, with
burning eloquence, the gospel of temperance and prohibition around the
world.
Elijah P. Brown, a zealous infidel, heard Mr. Moody preach on the love
of God, found the Savior, and became a brilliant defender of the
faith.
Chundra Lela, the daughter of a Brahman priest, spent a fortune and
lived a life of self inflicted torture, seeking salvation at all the
great shrines of India, but found none, until she heard the simple
story of Jesus from the lips of a missionary. That matchless name gave
her victory over sin, and transformed her into a saint and soul-winner
for Christ. Maurice Ruben, a successful Jewish merchant of Pittsburgh,
rejected Christianity and the Jewish religion as well. He was
converted, ostracised, persecuted, thrust into an insane asylum
unjustly, and told he must give up Christ or his wife and child. He
chose Christ. His family soon became Christians and joined him in the
great Jewish mission in Pittsburgh.
In a single night, the mountain floods in India caused the death of
the six children of Rev. D.H. Lee,--only one living a short time to
tell the story. They were all musicians. Out of the awful silence of
that home, Mrs. Lee sent to American papers, a triumphant pean of
praise to God. She was sustained by the power of God, so that she
could kiss, in loving devotion, the hand that smote her. The Lee
Memorial Orphanage, of Calcutta, stands as their monument.
Holy Ann, of Canada, was so profane and such a terror, that this name
was given her in derision. Touched by Christ, she became so sweet a
saint, that all regarded her as holy indeed.
Geo. Long, a denizen of the underworld, a victim of strong drink,
cocaine, opium and morphine, ruined in body and soul, was redeemed and
freed from these desperate vices, and made a successful soul-winner
for Christ.
These are a few of that "multitude that no man can number" who have
been delivered from the power of sin, and have overcome by faith in
Jesus.
If evolution be true it should be no hindrance but a great help. How
many drunkards have been saved by a belief in evolution, and how many
have been greater soul winners by such belief? How many criminals have
been saved by acceptance of the theory? Many have been made criminals,
unbelievers, infidels, agnostics and atheists by it; how many have
been made Christians? Can any one be named who has been made a more
earnest and successful soul winner, or a sweeter saint, by espousal of
the doctrine? If one blank page were set aside for a list of all
victims of sin and vice and crime, who were redeemed by faith in
evolution, the space would be wasted. Is there any comfort in it to
the dying, any help to the living? Would any evolutionist preacher
read to the dying, the so-called classic passage from Darwin, showing
that every living thing on the tangled bank came from one germ without
any assistance from God? Is there any choice passage in all their
books, fit to be read to the dying, or to a man in trouble, or in need
of salvation? Is there anything to put hope in the breast, or inspire
a man to a holy life? Anything to lift up a man sodden with sin, and
redeem him from the fetters that bind him?
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 | 9 |
10 |
11 |
12