Breaks in the Continuity

As we trace in imagination the supposed course of evolution from its assumed beginning in undifferentiated matter onward and upward to the infinite diversities of the organic kingdom, we not only encounter difficulties at every step and in connection with every detail, but we also find certain gaps, deep and wide, for which evolutionists themselves can offer no definite explanation. The first and greatest of these is the gap between the living and the not living. The entire world of living creatures is assumed to have emerged, sometime and somehow, and through "resident forces," out of the inorganic realm. Yet no trace of this marvelous process remains, and the inorganic world exhibits no progressiveness at all, no power or disposition to advance one hair's breadth.

      The next gap is that between the vegetable and animal kingdoms. If the latter, in its entirety, arose out of the former through gradual and infinitesimal changes, no trace of that marvelous development remains; nor can there be found in the vegetable kingdom anything from which the characteristic features of animal life could be evolved.

      Next we encounter the great gap between the vertebrates and the invertebrates; then that between the mammals and other vertebrates; then the gaps between each of the two million or so of distinct species of organisms and every other; and finally the immense gap between Man and the highest of the brutes.

      In considering these great gaps, and the many lesser ones, it should be borne in mind that Evolution is set forth expressly as a theory of origins, that is to say, [17] as an explanation of how all the infinite varieties of things, living and not-living, came into existence. But origins, including those of the very broadest kind, are just what the theory conspicuously fails to explain. Thus, to begin with, the evolutionist makes no pretence that his theory can explain the origin of either Matter or Force. The existence of these he must take for granted, and attribute them to an Unknowable First Cause.

The Origin of Life

Going on further we come to creatures having that mysterious thing called Life. Does Evolution account for the origin of that? Quite the contrary; Darwin himself declared that spontaneous generation is "absolutely inconceivable." His co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, says that "the very first vegetable cell must have possessed altogether new powers"; and he adds, "Here we have indications of a new power at work." Huxley admits that there is no evidence of any link between the living and the not living; and other leading evolutionists could be quoted to the same effect. So, just where an explanation of the origin of a new and extraordinary thing is needed, Evolution--that great theory of origins--completely breaks down. Matter and force do not account for the origin of life. Therefore Darwin had to accept the truth of divine fiat to explain it. He seems, in accepting this truth, to seek, by the use of fine language, to disguise the fact that it is fatal to his theory. Note his words: "There is a grandeur in this view of Life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into the first forms or into one." If so, then is there not the same "grandeur" in the view of the direct action of the Creator in the origin of every substance and species? Mr. Darwin admits (because he must) that there is nothing "unscientific" in assuming the direct intervention of the Creator in originating the first [18] living forms; and if so there is nothing unscientific in assuming His intervention to create all living species.

The Origin of the Animal Kingdom

Going still further, we come to the animal kingdom, whose species have powers (as locomotion, feelings, etc.) not possessed by the vegetable. What has Evolution to say as to the origin of that? Not a word. Here again Mr. Wallace admits that the advance from the vegetable to the animal kingdom is "completely beyond all possibility of explanation by Matter, its laws and forces. It is the introduction of sensation or consciousness, constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and vegetable kingdoms."

      Thus, in respect to the origins of the major divisions of nature, the theory of Evolution is a confessed failure. It cannot even pretend to account for them. This fact will be emphasized when we come to point out, later on, that the foremost evolutionists, including Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, utterly repudiated the Darwinian theory of the Origin of Species. It would be difficult or impossible to find a naturalist of the first rank who would support that theory today. Haeckel alone, of the older naturalists, stood for its defense; and he was utterly discredited because of his audacious and unscrupulous conduct in forging evidences to support the theory. But we would at this point ask, what is the value of, and what credence should be given to, a Theory of Origins which admittedly is unable to account for the origin of Matter, Force, Life, the Animal Kingdom, and the Species?

Other Origins

Passing on, in our general survey of nature, and without further reference at present to the Origin of Species (of which we have more to say later), we come to the Vertebrates, that is [19] to say, that large and superior order of living creatures which have a back-bone. Does Evolution give us any explanation of that? None whatever. While the difference between the vertebrates and invertebrates is not so conspicuous and notable as that between the living and not-living, or that between the vegetable and animal kingdom, yet Evolution is just as impotent to explain the one as the other. There is not the slightest evidence to show that creatures having no back-bone "evolved" the many species of vertebrates, nor is there even a plausible suggestion as to how such a thing could be brought to pass.

      Looking further, we come to the large and important class of Mammals, that is to say, species whereof the female imparts nourishment to its young from the breast. Certain species of vertebrates--the birds, reptiles and fishes--have not this peculiarity, nor anything approaching it. These, however, are far inferior to those creatures which have the nourishing breast. So we ask again the question: Does Evolution account for it? And again the answer must be in the negative. There is no connecting link between the two classes; nor are there any groups of non-mammals that are reaching out to enter the great class of Mammalia.

      We would at this point dispose of an unwarranted inference which is often urged (in the total absence of proofs) in support of the theory of Evolution. That inference is that because there are many species which have features in common--as back-bones, and nourishing breasts--those species must have had a common origin. That is to say, resemblances are supposed to point to an ancestor common to all. But the inference is without warrant. Such resemblances are just as consistent with the dogma of Creation as with the theory of Evolution. Resemblances are to be expected in the works of an all-wise Creator. For when He has devised a contrivance, as a back-bone, to serve [20] a certain purpose, He would inevitably use the same device in whatever place that purpose was to be served, with only such modifications and adaptations as the varying needs of individual species might require.

      We need not continue any further, for our present purpose, our general survey of the field of the organic kingdoms of nature. We deem it sufficient under this heading to say that, in not one of these orders and species, and in not one of the countless billions of organisms comprised in them, has there ever been seen the slightest tendency to advance, or to depart from its type. On the contrary, there is found in every living creature the most stubborn and unconquerable determination not to evolve. The whole universe, therefore, and every member of it, is a witness against Evolution.

      Furthermore, if Evolution were the law of progress of the universe, it is manifest that there would be no species or other lines of division. There would be only individual forms, shading imperceptibly one into another, each in the process of becoming something else, so that classification would be an impossibility. The world that lies before us, composed of clearly marked divisions, orders, classes, species, all sharply defined and separated one from another by impassable barriers, is just the opposite of such a world as the supposed law of Evolution would produce. We can, therefore, summon heaven and earth, land and sea, and all the hosts of them to bear witness, that Evolution is a myth.

Permanence of the Species

The matter of the permanence of species deserves special consideration. It is admitted on all hands that there is no Evolution in the individual organism--but that the contrary rule holds everywhere. For the individual comes into being suddenly, matures [21] quickly, reproduces, and suddenly ceases to be. The evolutionist, however, claims that it is the species, not the individual organism, that has come into existence through Evolution. The species, says he, is governed by the "law" of Evolution, though (strange to say) the individuals which compose the species are exempt from it.

      There is, however, a serious and obvious flaw in the logic which would distinguish thus between the individual, and the species to which it belongs; for the species cannot exist apart from the individuals composing it, any more than a river can exist apart from its water. The species is merely an abstraction; and there is obviously no way a species can evolve, except by the evolving of all the individuals composing it. Strictly speaking, and for the purposes of a discussion like this, "species" do not exist. What exist in nature are simply innumerable individuals each having its own life. Individuals which have life of the same sort are said to constitute a "species." Therefore, evolutionary changes, if they take place at all, must needs begin and continue in individuals.

      It follows that, if there be no inherent tendency in individual organisms to depart from their ancestral types, there could not be any development of new species. If, on the other hand, the immense number of existing species did come into their present state of being through evolutionary changes, effected by resident forces (as distinguished from the act of a Creator from without) then we should find no distinct species of plants and animals, but a very different state of things; for, instead of definite and persistent types, we should have a confusion of nondescript individuals, each in process of becoming something different from what its ancestors were.

      Evolution assumes that all things in the organic world are endowed with two opposite and mutually antagonistic tendencies, first a tendency to depart [22] from its ancestral type under the influence of changes in "environment," and second, a tendency to hold tightly all its peculiarities, and to transmit them to its offspring. These two tendencies could not exist in the same creatures. The former is purely imaginary. It is contrary to all the observed facts of nature. For, so far from there being any tendency on the part of individuals to depart from the ancestral type, and so far from there being any evidence of "resident forces" in them, impelling them to do so, the fact is--always and everywhere--that individual organisms evince a most stubborn tendency to cling to the ancestral type, despite all influences to the contrary.

      This important fact can be stated very strongly; for scientific men, like Luther Burbank, have sought by every conceivable means to develop new species. But, notwithstanding some remarkable results in the way of "varieties," it has been found (1) that the barrier of species cannot be crossed, (2) that every "variety" produced artificially, if left to itself for a few generations, reverts to the original type. In a word, what we find in each and all the thousands of species of living creatures is, perfect obedience to the primal law of their being, given to them by their Creator when He said, "Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind   *     *     *   and the living creature, after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after his kind; and it was so" (Gen. 1:11, 24). It was "so" then; and beyond all question it is "so" now.

      Here we see that Evolution comes into direct collision both with the facts of nature and with the statements of the Word of God.

Development of "Varieties"

A "species" may embrace many distinct "varieties," and man has indeed been able to produce artificially many varieties of existing species. But it is always [23] necessary to maintain by artificial means the modifications thus produced, else the individuals speedily revert to the original ancestral condition. Thus, upon consideration of these modifications of type, it is found that, so far from lending any support to the theory of Evolution, they furnish a strong argument against it. For it is essential to that theory that modifications, when of advantage to the possessor, should become fixed in the family, and be carried forward to all succeeding generations. But what we find in actual experience is just the reverse.

      Moreover, while varieties without number can be easily produced, it has been found impossible, even in a single instance, to cross the line of species. Thus, we see many varieties of dog. The canine species includes the great shaggy St. Bernard, and the diminutive smooth skinned terrier. But in every case it is a dog, and is recognized by his fellow dogs as such. No amount of breeding, or cross-breeding, could ever make him anything but a dog.

      Indeed it is demonstrable that the species are absolutely fixed; and that so far from there being a general tendency on the part of all animate creatures to depart from the ancestral type, there is, on the contrary, found to be an invariable and inexorable law, which absolutely forbids such departure. Since we regard this fact as fatal to the Darwinian theory of the origin of species, we will give the explanation of it in the words of a famous evolutionist, Mr. Huxley, who says:

      "If you breed from the male and female of the same race, you of course have offspring of the like kind; and if you make the offspring breed together, you obtain the same result; and if you breed from these again, you will still have the same kind of offspring. There is no check. But if you take members [24] of two distinct species, however similar they may be to each other, and make them breed together, you will find a check. If you cross two such species, then, although you may get offspring in the case of the first cross, yet if you attempt to breed from the products of that crossing (which are what are called hybrids) that is, if you mate a male and a female hybrid, then the result is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at all."

      We need not inquire the explanation of this, though Mr. Huxley says, "the reason is quite obvious in some cases"; for the fact is admitted on all hands.

      Now what, we would ask, is the inference to be drawn from this fact? Certainly it follows that the evolution of one species from another is an impossibility; so that, at this point again, the theory breaks down completely. Indeed we can read as much between the lines of the admission which Mr. Huxley himself is constrained, though with manifest reluctance, to make. He says:

      "After much consideration, and assuredly with no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by 'species' in nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or natural." And again; "Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile with one another, that link will be wanting." [25]

      Later on Mr. Huxley definitely rejected the Darwinian theory, as we will point out hereafter.

Repro- duction

We have referred in the foregoing pages to the power, inherent in all living creatures, to reproduce their kind. This universal fact, which obviously is essential to the continuance of every species, raises the important question, how did the power of reproduction originate? It is evident that the very first (as well as all subsequent) organisms must have possessed this marvelous power. Whence then did it come? Manifestly it could not have arisen by a gradual process of Evolution; for the very first organisms must have had it in the same perfection as their offspring. Here again the doctrine of Creation appears to great advantage in comparison with the defective theory of Evolution; for, as a prominent part of the inspired description of Creation, are the words: "Grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind" etc. Those words fully account for the power of reproduction possessed by all living creatures.

      In concluding under this heading we want to say that it would suffice to put the case for Evolution entirely out of court that there should be found no evidence sufficient in character and amount to establish it. But the case against it is far stronger than that. For even those who give no weight to the testimony of the Bible on this point, have to admit that there are no observable tendencies on the part of any one of the billions of living creatures to depart from the ancestral type, but that, per contra, where variations have been produced artificially, they are but slight in character, and the tendency is invariably to go backward and not forward. This is a strong disproof of Evolution. [26]

[EATB4 17-26]