Science not an Authority

In this chapter we propose to examine the reasons usually advanced in support of the theory of Evolution. Those reasons relate entirely to Organic Evolution, or the Origin of Species and the "Descent of Man"; for there is (so far as we are aware), no pretence that any facts are known from which the theory of Cosmic Evolution could be inferred.

      It should be pointed out, before entering upon this examination, that it is easy to impose upon the majority of people by an appeal to "Science" as an authority. Thus, we often hear it said, "Science has discovered this," or "Science tells us that," as if the matter were thereby conclusively settled. But it would be well to ask, who is "Science"? and where does he live? And how comes he to know these things? The fact is there is no "Science" in this sense. It is true that a few capable men have attempted to explore the field of Nature in various directions, and have ascertained a fact or two, to which they have added a thousand guesses. But they have left a million questions unanswered, without which no safe conclusions can be drawn. It is the commonest thing for "Science" to contradict one day what it most positively asserted the day previous; so that, in view of the existing state of complete scientific ignorance on the subject of origins, it would be absurd to accept as true any statement on that subject in the name of "Science."

      A few years ago Mr. Thomas A. Edison, commenting upon the boasted progress of Science, said that if the same rate of progress were maintained for the next two thousand years, mankind might then be in a position to begin to draw conclusions. [27]

Reasons Given in Support of Evolution

In examining the reasons that are commonly given in support of the theory, we shall select those which are deemed, by its advocates, to be the strongest. These are (1) the changes which are observed to occur in the embryo of the human species from its first beginning to its full development, which changes are assumed to be, in their order and character, a recapitulation of the changes through which the species itself is supposed to have passed in the course of its development; (2) the succession of living forms in time; it having been ascertained from geological researches, that the more simple forms of life are, generally speaking, found in the lower strata of rocks, and those more complex higher up.

Embryology

We put this argument first because (a) it is generally deemed the strongest, and (b) it is from out of the studies of changes in the embryo (embryology) that the idea of Evolution sprang. So we have now the opportunity to examine the theory at its point of origin.

      The argument from embryology consists of two suppositions, for neither of which is there any proof whatever. First it is assumed that the human species did evolve by gradual changes, passing from a simple uni-cellular creature, such as the Amoeba, through successively higher species until it became Man; and second, it is assumed that the human embryo passes through the same changes in its prenatal history of about nine months. Manifestly we have here no proof of Evolution; for in this argument, Evolution is taken for granted. It cannot be possibly known whether the changes of the embryo are a resume of the history of development of the species, until it is known what that history was. Therefore we are thrown back upon the question, can Evolution be certainly inferred from the changes of the embryo? [28]

      First let it be observed that there is no proved or necessary relationship between the growth of the embryo and the history of its species. If indeed the embryo does perform, in the short space of nine months, the stupendous feat of changing from Amoeba to Man, passing swiftly through all the intervening species, it would be a most miraculous and supernatural thing, whereof it were vain to seek an explanation in the sphere of nature. Evolution, however, is exceedingly slow. It demands millions of years to effect slight changes. It denies and excludes the miraculous from the sphere of nature. It cannot, therefore, assume a prodigious miracle in its own support. The supposed transformations of the embryo tend not in the slightest to prove the truth of the theory. Those changes, like all others in the history of a living creature, belong in the category of the mysteries of life, concerning which science has been able thus far to give no explanation whatever. "The way of the tree of life" (Gen. 3:24) has been effectually kept from all prying investigators.

      But let us go deeper into the subject, and ask, what are the changes which take place in the human embryo? And do they really constitute an evolution? Upon pressing this inquiry we find first, that the likeness of the human embryo to that of other creatures at different stages of its growth is a mere superficial resemblance; for even the evolutionist would not pretend that there is any essential likeness between them; and second, that even in those superficial and transient resemblances the growth of the embryo does not go through the stages of the supposed development of man. These objections are fatal.

      1. In a case of this sort, superficial resemblances count for nothing; for beneath them there are, in fact, vital differences. The human embryo is, at all stages of its growth, the human embryo. It is at every stage, essentially different from that of the worm, the [29] fish, and from that of every other mammal. Prof. Fairhurst says:

      "It is evident that while all eggs, from that of the sponge to that of man, may seem to be alike in structure, they are really as far apart in their essential nature as are the fully developed sponge and the full-grown man. Taking the embryos of man and fish the argument of the evolutionist is as follows: The embryos of man and fish, at a certain stage of development, are closely alike in appearance; therefore, man and fish had a common ancestral origin. The conclusion which the evolutionist draws is based upon a mere seeming and very transient resemblance, while the fact that the two embryos are essentially unlike is shown by the vast distance apart at which they arrive by development. It is true that the embryos of vertebrates look much more alike than do the adults, and that the eggs are still nearer alike in appearance than are the embryos; but I insist again that the embryos are no nearer together in essential structure than the adults. The egg which can be developed into a man is just as different in nature from the egg of a fish, as the man is from the fish. The eggs are essentially unlike. The essential qualities of eggs are beyond the power of the microscope to reveal. The human embryo is produced by human beings only; and whatever may be its microscopic appearance, it is at every stage of its development strictly human. Embryology, as applied to Evolution, fails in that it deals only with the surface of things."

      Thus the strongest argument of the evolutionist breaks down completely for the reason that the facts are the reverse of what his theory calls for.

      2. Furthermore, even the superficial changes of [30] the human embryo do not represent anything like the complete line of the supposed human ancestry. Prof. Fairhurst says that the entire first half of the history of Evolution is not even hinted at in the epitome (Organic Evolution Considered, p. 147). Further he says:

      "There are radical differences between the embryos of vertebrates and invertebrates. Worms and other articulates in embryo lie doubled backwards around the yolk, while all vertebrates are doubled in the opposite direction. According to the theory that the embryonic condition is a recapitulation of the stages of organic evolution, this fundamental fact of invertebrate embryology ought to have been preserved by the vertebrate. Evolution gives no account of this reversal of position by the vertebrates."

      There are other gaps in the succession of changes through which the embryo passes; but it is needless to speak of them. Enough has been said to show that the argument from embryology is not only a far-fetched inference, but that the facts are the reverse of what the inference calls for.

      It is of interest to note that Dr. Romanes, one of the most extreme of evolutionists, declared the facts of embryology to be "the most important of the lines of evidence" in support of Evolution. While holding those views he wrote strongly against the Bible doctrine of Creation, and against supernaturalism in general. "But later he changed his views entirely, and died in 1894, confessing his faith, not only in the providence of God, but in the deity of Christ." (Fairhurst: Theistic Evolution, p. 11.)

Succession of Species

The evolutionist also appeals, in support of his theory, to the fact that the fossils preserved in the sedimentary rocks indicate that the various species did not come into [31] existence all at once, but successively; and that (generally speaking) the simpler forms came first into existence, and the more complex later in point of time.

      To this argument the obvious answer is that the fact of the successive appearance of the several species does not tend in the least to prove that the later were derived from the earlier by a process of evolution, or by any other process. The succession of the species can be explained by Creation, as well as by Evolution. In fact the record of Creation in Genesis 1, declares that vegetation first appeared on earth, then fishes, then birds, then land animals, and finally Man. The geological remains show the same order. Manifestly then the argument from succession of species lends no support whatever to the theory we are discussing.

      But we can go further than this; for when the details of the geological records, as presented by the science of paleontology, are examined, it is found that they bear heavily against the theory. This is conceded by the very foremost evolutionists, insomuch that, to escape the force of the paleontological proofs, they are driven to the pitiful expedient of supposing that there have been millions of extinct species and transitional forms which have left no trace of their existence, and that if by any means the lost evidence could be recovered, it would prove their case.

      The fact is that an enormous mass of evidence has been accumulated by means of geological researches. Here we have the foot-prints of the distant past, the records of the periods which would certainly be rich in the evidences of the evolutionary origin of the various species, if such were indeed the nature of their beginning. The evolutionist examines this great mass of facts and finds nothing which supports his theory, but much to the contrary. His only comment on the situation is that Nature has, with invidious discrimination, destroyed the great bulk of the evidence, including every trace of the operation of Evolution, and [32] every one of the thousand billion variant forms which must have existed, and has preserved only such evidences, and those in great abundance, as oppose his theory. It may be said of this explanation that it is even harder to understand and to accept than that which it purports to explain--the absence of all trace of a "law" which is said to have operated universally and from the very beginning of time. The great god, Evolution, is indeed as difficult to locate or find a trace of as the Olympian Zeus.

      Imagine a litigant in court upon whom rests the burden of proof. He insists that the averments of his declaration are true, and demands a verdict in his favor; but he has no proofs to sustain his allegations. In fact all the evidence presented in court is against him. He demands, nevertheless, that judgment be rendered in his favor upon the supposition (a) that volumes of proofs, which once existed, have been destroyed, leaving no trace; and (b) that if those proofs could now be produced they would be found to be in his favor! Such is the absurd plight in which the theory of Evolution now finds itself, as matters stand at present.

      As to this important feature of the discussion it is enough to say that, considering the great mass of fossilized remains which have been collected from every stratum, and from every part of the world, the presumption is that, if the records were complete, the parts now missing would confirm what we have.

Species Appeared Suddenly

The first fossil remains of organisms are found in the Primordial period. Le Conte says that in it are found "the representatives of all the great types of animals, except the vertebrates." Thus, according to the evidence (which, by Le Conte's statement, is massive in quantity and clear in character), numerous highly organized creatures--about half the entire animal [33] kingdom in fact--came suddenly and virtually simultaneously into existence. Of their supposed progenitors, of whom, if Evolution be true, countless billions must have existed, not a trace survives in the earlier formations. This is the more impressive because those earlier formations are estimated to have occupied about half the entire period of geological time.

      (In this discussion we are giving the evolutionist the advantage of supposing, for the purpose of the argument, that his theory of immense ages of geological time is correct. That theory is, in fact, quite destitute of supporting proof, and we wish it to be understood that we do not accept it as true.)

Great Gaps Between Species Existed from the First

Another very striking fact which this earliest record of living creatures presents is that, "from the very beginning the great gulfs which separate the animal kingdom into sub-kingdoms and classes existed then, and have continued till the present time" (Fairhurst). Considering that the interval from the Primordial period until now is estimated by physicists at fifty millions of years, we have in this fact of stability of the species a conclusive proof that Evolution is a myth.

      Another striking fact, to which these records bear witness, and which is fatal to the theory, is that every species, as it suddenly appears, has its complete organism; that is to say, it is fully developed in every feature of its structure, however complex.

      If, therefore, we place ourselves in imagination in the Primordial period, amidst the immense number of varieties of living creatures then existent, whether we look backward into the past, or forward into the future, we see that Evolution had nothing whatever to do with their origin or development. In one direction we see no long ancestral line from which they were gradually evolved; for the species, like each [34] individual member thereof, came into being suddenly. This may be termed "negative" evidence. But such evidence is sometimes conclusive, as when a thorough exploration of an island reveals no remains whatever of man or human implements, it may be concluded with certainty that it was never inhabited by man.

      But on looking forward the evidence is positive, as well as conclusive. For the very same species found in the Primordial era, and appearing suddenly, are in existence today without substantial change of structure or habit of life. Evolution requires, and of course would produce, life-forms quite flexible and plastic, structures such that every part of every organ and surface would be liable at all times to variation, and would be subject to change whenever a change of environment occurs. But we find, on the contrary, absolute rigidity of both structure and habit. On this evidence we are bound to conclude that living creatures originated in a manner very different from that assumed by the evolutionist.

      As has been already stated, the earliest geological remains of organisms show lower and higher forms of life existing side by side. Now, according to Evolution, the former would be the progenitors of the latter; and upon that supposition there must have been already at that early period an immense evolutionary advance, which would imply that such lower forms were exceedingly progressive in character. But this supposition (and with it the entire theory) is completely negatived by the fact that those self-same forms have persisted without change to this very day. Instead of being progressive, as Evolution demands, they are proven to be absolutely unprogressive. Every one of those million forms is a venerable witness (50 million years old, if our geologists are right) against the theory of Evolution.

      What reply has the evolutionist to these facts? [35] Worse than none. Mr. Huxley, one of the ablest of them all, and one who openly devoted his great talents to the destruction of faith in Divine revelation, has faced these facts in his address to the Royal Geological Society in 1870. He puts the question thus:

      "What then does an impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of paleontology testify in relation to the common doctrines of progressive modification (i. e. Evolution), which suppose that modification to have taken place from more to less embryonic forms, from more to less generalized types, within the limits of the period represented by the fossiliferous rocks?" And he answers the question by saying, "I reply, it negatives those doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of such modifications, or it demonstrates such modification as has occurred to have been very slight. The significance of persistent types, and the small amount of change which has taken place even in those forms which can be shown to have been modified, becomes greater and greater in my eyes, the longer I occupy myself with the Biology of the past" (quoted by Th. Graebner, in "Evolution").

The Fragmen- tary Character of the Record

The disappointed evolutionist pleads the imperfection of the geological records. In order that his theory may not be dismissed for lack of proof, he asks us to believe that much of the pertinent evidence has been lost, and that what has been lost was in favor of his theory. But Le Conte says: "We think the fragmentariness of the geological record has been overstated." And the Duke of Argyll, in his Organic Evolution Cross-Examined, shows conclusively that, in certain periods, the plea of imperfection of the record is completely ruled out. [36]

      "There are," says he, "some tracts of time regarding which our records are as complete as we could desire. In the Jurassic rocks we have a continuous and undisturbed series of long and tranquil deposits, containing a complete record of all the new forms of life which were introduced during those ages of oceanic life. And those ages were as a fact long enough to see not only a thick (1300 feet) mass of deposit, but also the first appearance of hundreds of new species. These are all as definite and distinct from each other as are existing species. No less than 1850 new species have been counted, all of them suddenly born, all of them lasting only for a time, and all of them in their turn superseded by still newer forms. There is no sign of mixture or of confusion, or of infinitesimal, or of intermediate variations. These 'Medals of Creation' are all, each of them, struck by a new die, which never failed to impress itself on the plastic materials of this truly creative work."

      Could it be shown that but only one species originated otherwise than by slight modification of the structure of pre-existent species, that would suffice to overthrow the theory of Evolution. But the science of paleontology presents us with clear evidences of thousands of species coming suddenly into existence; and on the other hand there is not the faintest indication that there was ever a species that came into being in any other way.

      We have, therefore, found that what evolutionists put forward as the strongest proofs of their theory--Embryology and Paleontology--yield, when closely examined, convincing, indeed conclusive, evidence against it. [37]

[EATB4 27-37]