THE
CREATION OF MAN
T.P.
Simmons
In
the previous chapter we covered the creation of the earth. In this chapter we
are to deal with the creation of man. We are to face here the broad question:
How did man come into existence? Another question growing out
of this one is: Has science given a rational naturalistic explanation of the
origin of man? There is also a third question that arises. Does the Bible teach
that man is the direct and immediate creation of God? The answers to these
questions will be made manifest as we give consideration to three other
questions which form the grand divisions of this chapter, viz.,
I.
DID GOD CREATE MAN?
1.
THE BIBLE SAYS HE DID.
The
Bible repeatedly answers this question in the affirmative.
Can we, in this scientific age, intelligently accept this Bible truth? We shall
see.
Let
it be definitely borne in mind that we are not at this time asking how God
created man. That question will form our next grand division. Our present
question is, to put it more pointedly: Did God in some manner
originate man? or, to put it in yet another form, Is God the author of life?
2.
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION DISPROVED.
There
was a time when scientists were quite confident that living
cells could be generated from certain kinds of dead matter under favorable
conditions. But the experiments of Pasteur and Tyndall demolished this theory of
the spontaneous generation of life.
Therefore
we read from such a source as Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia (Vol. B, p. 151):
"It
is only in recent years (this was published in 1951] that science has proved
that the origin of life is the same for the simplest forms as for the
highest-for the infinitely small germs of tuberculosis, and the whole multitude
of plant and germ life . . .as for mankind itself. At present it can be said
that man has never created even the simplest form of life, or seen it rise
spontaneously."
If
there are those who are credulous enough to believe that spontaneous generation
will yet be observed or demonstrated, let them take cognizance of the fact that
the advance of knowledge is constantly deepening the mystery of life. This was
acknowledged as early as 1900 by H. W. Conn, a thorough-going evolutionist. In his book, The Method of Evolution, he said:
"An
important part of the evolution problem is, of course, the origin of life, which
appears to mean the origin of the first protoplasm. Upon this subject it must be
confessed we are in as deep ignorance as ever. Indeed, if anything, the
disclosures of the modern microscope have placed the solution of this problem even farther from our grasp. So long as we could regard
protoplasm as a chemical compound, definite, though complex, so long was it
possible to believe that its origin in the past geological ages was a simple
matter of chemical affinity. It was easy to assume that, under the conditions of
earlier ages, when chemical elements were necessarily placed in different
relations to each other from those of today, chemical combinations would arise
which would result in the formation of the complex body of
protoplasm. This has been the supposition that has laid the foundation of
various suggestions as to the origin of life. But having now learned that this
substance is not a chemical compound, but a mechanism, and that its properties
are dependent upon its mechanism such a conception of the origin of life is no
longer tenable. In its place must be substituted some forces which build a
mechanism. But even our most extreme evolutionists have not
yet suggested any method of bridging the chasm, and at the present time we must
recognize that the problem of the origin of life is in greater obscurity than
ever. The origin of chemical compounds we may explain, but their combination
into an organic machine which we call protoplasm is, at present, unimaginable."
More
than fifty years have passed since Prof. Conn wrote the above, and still no
evolutionist has found the natural bridge between the living and the non-living;
and such is even more unimaginable today than it was in 1900.
In
view of all this Prof. Asa Gray of Harvard University wrote:
"A beginning is wholly beyond the ken and scope of science, which is concerned
with questions about how things go on; and has nothing to say as to how they
absolutely began" (Natural Science and Religion).
3.
TRUE SCIENCE DEMANDS BELIEF THAT GOD CREATED MAN.
The
foregoing is true of science only insofar as it is confined to natural
explanations. But science, broadly speaking, means systematized knowledge, and
no man has the right to limit science to natural causes. The term is used in a
special sense as referring to knowledge relating to the physical world. This is
called natural science. But even natural science is concerned with the
observation and classification of facts with a view to the
discovery of general truths and the establishment of verifiable general laws. It
proceeds chiefly by postulating hypotheses and testing them, and then by drawing
general conclusions by induction. Hypotheses with reference to the natural
origin of life have been thoroughly tested and found false. Is it not about time
for all true scientists to adopt by induction the hypothesis that supernatural
power alone can account for the origin of things, especially
life? Observation has established the fact that life can come only from life.
Now every scientist knows that physical life is dependent on matter. Moreover he
knows that matter cannot be eternal. Therefore he knows that physical life
cannot be eternal. Why, then, should not the true scientist adopt the conclusion
that physical life began through the power of invisible life?
Some
scientists have done this. Among them is the famous Louis Pasteur, who said:
"Believe
me, in the face of these great problems, these eternal subjects of man's
solitary meditation, there are only two attitudes of mind: one created by faith,
the belief in the solution given by Divine Revelation; and
that of tormenting the soul by the pursuit of impossible explanations" (Pasteur
and His Work, L. Decours, p. 206).
But
even more to the point is the testimony of lord Kelvin, the greatest scientist
since Newton, the master of Dynamics, Sound, Light, Heat and Electricity; who
said in a letter to James Knowles in 1903:
"I
cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms
nor denies Creative Power. SCIENCE POSITIVELY AFFIRMS CREATIVE POWER. It is not
in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and
directing power WHICH SCIENCE COMPELS US TO ADOPT AS AN
ARTICLE OF BELIEF ... There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a
Creative power, and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of
atoms . . ."
To
the same effect is the testimony of the great Swiss geologist, Lewis J. R.
Agassiz (1807-1873):
"Though
I know those who hold it to be unscientific to believe that thinking is not
something inherent in matter, and that there is an essential difference between
inorganic and living and thinking beings, I shall not be prevented by any such
pretentions of a false philosophy from expressing my conviction that as long as it cannot be shown that matter or physical forces do
actually reason, I shall consider any manifestation of physical thought as the
evidence of a thinking being as the author of such thought, and shall look upon
an intelligent and intelligible connection between the facts of Nature as direct
proof of a thinking God ... All these facts proclaim aloud the one God whom man
may know, adore, and love; and natural history must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the creator of the universe as
manifested in the animal and vegetable kingdom" (Methods of Study in Natural
History).
Finally
we read from Sir Oliver Lodge:
"We
cannot understand the existence either of ourselves or of an
external world unless we postulate some kind of creation. Creation involves
design and purpose and mental activity, and necessarily implies a creator of
some kind" (The Great Design, p. 231).
Therefore
when we accept the declaration of Genesis that God created man we are actuated
by faith and also compelled by science. The only scientists
that will want to deny or even ignore the scientific evidence of an eternal,
personal, self-existent Cause of all existing things are those whose minds are
preempted by either agnosticism or atheism; and this means that they are
dominated by an unscientific attitude.
1.
NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR EXTENDED ANTIQUITY OF MAN.
Can
we rely upon the chronology of Genesis, after due allowance is made for any
possible numerical errors of transcription? or are we forced
to believe that man has been on the earth from 500,000 to a million years?*
Harry Rimmer, D.D., Sc.D., says:
"The
evidences (?) of an extended antiquity for man are purely hypothetical, entirely
erroneous, and in most cases manufactured entirely out of the imagination and
desire of the sponsor of such evidences. The attempts to
prove the data have been simply ludicrous, and in any other field would be
pathetic as well. But there is no pathos in the attempts of staid men of science
to falsify evidence and obscure the very subject they are presumed to illumine;
this is pure chicanery. Scientific reputations are used to perpetuate shams
hoaxes that would make the late and able Barnum turn green with envy, and cause
him to revise his famous estimate which said there was only one
__________
*All
suggestions that Moses did not intend to give an exact chronology in stating the
ages of fathers at the birth of sons are about as sensible as would be the
suggestion that it is not the purpose of a clock to indicate time. The author takes his stand with Moses and banks on his
accuracy. A believer in verbal inspiration cannot do otherwise. There may have
been minor errors of transcription. Then there is the question of the
comparative accuracy of the extant Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint
translation. Some defend one and some defend the other. Even so the disagreement
is of no great importance when it comes to deciding whether man has been on the
earth a few thousand years or a million years. It is
admitted that an absolutely complete and reliable chronology cannot be made out
much beyond the birth of Isaac. But we know that by no manner of means can man's
existence on this earth be lengthened to more than a few thousand years without
denying any semblance of accuracy to the Bible.
sucker
born every minute", (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, p. 118).
2.
WORLD POPULATION PROVES HISTORY OF MAN SHORT.
Moreover
an extended antiquity for man cannot be reconciled with the present population
of the world. We read from Handrich:
"Now,
if the original population was two, we can find by logarithms that the
population would have doubled itself thirty times to produce
the present number of people (that is, the number of people in 1940) in the
world. If the original pair lived, say, five hundred thousand years ago, which
is considerably less than the average evolutionary estimate, the average
interval of doubling would have been 16,667 years, which is absurd. If on the
other hand, all people are descended from Noah and his wife, who, according to
the best Biblical chronology, must have lived about 4,500 years ago, then the average interval for doubling is 150 years, which
is reasonable" (Creation-Facts, Theories, and Faith, P. 284).
The
interval for the doubling of the population of the world would be increased to
approximately 168 years if the longer chronology of Hales, based on the
Septuagint, is followed, which allows 5,170 years from the
time Noah and his wife were the lone ancestors of present day mankind up to
1940. This figure receives remarkable and singular confirmation as being
approximately right from the number of descendants of Abraham and Jacob on the
earth in 1922. In that year the descendents of Abraham numbered approximately
25,000,000. Abraham begat Ishmael 3,988 years prior to 1922, according to Hales.
These figures show that the descendents of Abraham doubled
every 163 years (approximately). On the other hand, there were 15,393,815
descendants of Jacob in the world in 1922. According to Hales, it was 3,850
years prior to 1922 that Jacob married. These figures show that the interval for
the doubling of the descendants of Jacob is 162 years (approximately). The
approximate correspondence of these figures (168 for the world as a whole; 163
for the descendants of Abraham; and 162 for the descendants
of Jacob) cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence.
Furthermore
the reliability of average statistics is established by the fact that insurance
companies, the world over, conduct successful business on the basis of them.
Therefore,
following the longer chronology of Hales, we find that man
has been on this earth approximately 7,366 years. The author is willing to risk
the prediction that no man will ever establish a longer period for man's tenancy
on this planet. If anything, this figure is too large. Gilbert says:
"Man
has 7,000 years of history on the earth" (Transactions of
Victoria Institute, Vol. 27, p. 41).
Sir
William Dawson says:
"This
figure (7,000) must be reduced" (Modern Science in Bible
Lands, pp. 99, 100).
3.
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE.
Nor
does Egyptian chronology disprove the foregoing. There is no settled Egyptian
chronology. Blaikie reflects this fact as follows:
"Egyptian
Archeologists differ as to the length of the authentic period of Egyptian
history. Six writers quoted by Brugsch represent it as having begun at various
periods before Christ, ranging from 3150 years to 5702. The period does not
exceed by very great space the time allowed by our ordinary chronology; while the fact that authorities differ to the extent of 2552
years shows how much uncertainty still belongs to the subject. How far the
dynasties were contemporaneous, is still an unsettled question" (Bible History,
p. 50).
4.
FLOOD PROBABLY INTERRUPTED EGYPTIAN HISTORY.
It
is commonly supposed that we must allow sufficient time after the flood for the
original development of Egyptian civilization. But such is not the case.
Urquhart devotes twelve pages of his New Biblical Guide (Vol. 1, pp. 298-309) to
evidences that the deluge of the Bible broke into Egyptian history following the
Sixth Dynasty. He quotes the following highly significant words from M.
Mariette:
"After
the reigns of Apappus and Nitocris, which closed the Sixth Dynasty, a sudden and
unforeseen check was given to the progress of civilization; and during four
hundred and thirty-six years--from the Sixth to the Eleventh Dynasty--Egypt
seems to have disappeared from the list of nations. When she awoke from her long sleep, on the accession of the Entefs and
Menuhotefs (of the Eleventh Dynasty), it was to find that her ancient traditions
were quite forgotten. The old family names, titles of the functionaries, the
writing, and even the religion itself seems changed. No longer were Thinis,
Elephantine, and Memphis the capitals, but Thebes was for the first time chosen
as the seat of sovereign power. Besides this, Egypt had been shorn of a
considerable portion of her territory, and the authority of
her kings was limited to the Thebaid. The monuments, which were barbaric,
primitive, sometimes even course, confirm all this; and on looking at them, we
might easily believe that Egypt under the Eleventh Dynasty had reverted to that
period of infancy through which she had passed under the Third" (History of
Egypt, pp. 14,15).
Moreover
John F. Blake, in History of the Heavens, tells us that Egyptians participate in
"a New Year's festival connected with and determined by Pleiades (that is the
passing of the meridan by this constellation at midnight), (which) appears to be
one of the most universal of all customs" (p. 115). The date of this festival is
Nov. 17, which is believed by many to correspond to "the second month, the seventeenth day" as given in Gen. 7:11 for the beginning
of the flood. Mr. Blake says that this festival was "always connected with the
memory of the dead" because of "a tradition that the world has been previously
destroyed at this time." Mr. Blake then makes a final summation of the matter as
follows:
"The
commemoration of the dead was connected among the Egyptians
with a Deluge which was typified by the priest placing the image of Osirus in a
sacred coffer or ark, and launching it out into the sea till it was borne out of
sight. Now when we connect this fact, and the celebration taking place on the
17th day of Athyr, with the date on which the Mosaic account of the Deluge of
Noah states it to have commenced, 'in the second month (of the Jewish year,
which corresponds to November), the 17th day of the month,'
it must be acknowledged that this is no chance coincidence, and that the precise
date here stated must have been regulated by the Pleiades, as was the Egyptian
date" (ibid. pp. 121,122).
III.
HOW DID GOD CREATE MAN?
We
noted in the previous chapter that the Hebrew word "bara" is used three times in
Gen. 1:27, where it evidently refers to the creation of life in man. The Hebrew
word signifies a direct and immediate creation. Moreover, in Gen. 2:7 we are
told that God made the body of man out of the dust of the ground, not from the
body of some lower form of life.
Now
the atheistic evolutionist flatly and openly denies this account. He is
absolutely and willfully blind, but consistent. The theistic evolutionist is an
inconsistent straddler. He foolishly tries to hold to both evolution and divine
creation. Harry Rimmer has the following to say with reference to Genesis and
Theistic Evolution:
"It
is here stated that man was created by a specific fiat of the deity. To refute
this, men who are unwilling to receive and recognize the power of God in
creation have produced the weird theory of Theistic Evolution. By this they
state that God's part in the matter was a minor part. He created the first tiny
cell and endued it with power to multiply and change, violated all present known
laws of biology, and by a series of miraculous
transmutations produced all living things that are now or ever have been,
climaxing in a creature called man. THIS IS A HOPELESS ATTEMPT TO RIDE TWO
HORSES THAT ARE HEADED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. This theory of Theistic Evolution
limits God in His power to create a specific being and denies Him the authority
demanded by the creation account in Genesis. It also violates the clear teaching
of this text" (Modern Science and the Genesis Record, p.
275)
1.
BIBLICAL REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT MAN IS THE DIRECT CREATION OF GOD.
These
reasons will show that the Bible cannot be made to harmonize
with evolution. They concern:
(1)
The Time of Man's Creation.
It
has been shown, and any man that is not totally blind must
recognize it, that the Bible will not allow in its chronology the long ages
demanded by evolution for man's existence on this earth.
(2)
The Method of Man's Creation.
It
has also been shown that the method of God in man's creation, as set forth in
the Bible, is in hopeless conflict with the theory of evolution.
(3)
The Method and Time of Woman's Creation.
The
scriptural account of woman's creation represents her as being created after man
and from a rib taken from man. On the other hand, evolution would have
necessarily produced the female along with the male, else procreation would have
been impossible.
(4)
The Manner in Which the Human Race Began.
We
learn from the Bible that the human race began with one man, Adam. But, if
evolution were true, it is certain that many human beings would have been
produced simultaneously and in various parts of the earth.
(5)
The Original State and Fall of Man.
According
to the Bible, man was created holy and upright, and fell from this estate,
bringing sin into the world (Gen. 1:27; Eccl. 7:29; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22).
But evolution has no place for an original holy state of man, nor for the entrance of sin through a fall.
(6)
The Permanence of Each "Kind" of Life.
In
Genesis God prescribed that each kind of life bring forth "after his kind." It
has been remarked already that the Genesis "kind" is
probably broader than "species" as sometimes used; but it need not be thought of
as being broader than "family" according to biological classification in order
to see that Genesis is true according to science. Evolution is in opposition to
the Bible on this matter in that it believes in the transmutation not only of
species, but of families and even of phyla. It is noteworthy that biologists
have felt compelled to put man in a family by himself. Man,
designated biologically as species Homo sapiens, is the sole representative of
the family Hominidae.*
2.
SCIENTIFIC REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT MAN IS THE DIRECT CREATION OF GOD.
Every
scientific evidence of the falsity of the theory of evolution is scientific
evidence of the direct creation of man. Thus we have here a broad field.
(1)
Evolution Cannot Prove that Protozoa Ever Have Become Metazoa.
The
phylum protozoa includes all animal forms that consist of one cell. The earth
literally teems with them. They generally reproduce by fission. But they never
change into metazoa- animal forms with more than one cell. This startling fact
is well stated by Harry Rimmer as follows:
"When
these present day protozoa, which are living creatures whose entire organism
consists of just one cell, are observed for thousands and thousands of
generations, they never change one iota from what they were in the very
beginning. Countless generations pass under the eye of the observer and no new
species of protozoa arise, nor do metazoa result from changes in protozoan
structure" (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of
Science, p. 24).
Now
evolution supposes that all life, both plant and animal, has evolved from some
protozoan form. It must suppose that a protozoan form became a metazoan form,
which is contrary to both observation and reason. There is no imaginable way for
this to take place. Every time a protozoan divides, it gives rise to an offspring- another protozoan. Thus, at its very foundation
(ignoring its inability to give a natural explanation of the origin of the first
protozoan), evolution is utterly unscientific and is guilty of a rash guess that
is not worthy to be called a theory
__________
*See
General Biology, p. 757 (Mavor), The Macmillan Company (1952).
__________
or
hypothesis. The only man, therefore, that will believe the first postulate of
evolution is the man whose prejudice against the supernatural overbalances his reason.*
(2)
Evolution Cannot Explain Why The Body Cells of Each Species are Different.
I
quote again from Harry Rimmer for the sake of convenience and brevity:
"For
a long time morphology, the science of gross bodily structure, proved the
stumbling block of biologists. Realizing that all living things were simply
masses of cells, and supposing that all cells were fundamentally the same, the
biologist of the past generation concocted the theory of the Continuity of
Life." "This is all changed now. The archaic days of biology are over, and the
super-microscope, the micro-manipulator, and ultra-violet
observation have opened up new fields. The earliest experiments I know of in the
differentiation of protoplasm were to determine the rate of decomposition of
this element under the ultra-violet ray. Then sufficient quantities of the
substance were isolated for more careful study . . . The protoplasm of the cat
family is one kind of protoplasm, and the dog has a distinct kind of protoplasm
that differs from that of the cat. Boiled down to its
essential summary, there is a variable formula for the formation of protoplasm
by species. So we are now in the stage of research where we can begin to test
protoplasm as we do blood! We do not make the error of saying, that as all
mammals have blood they are essentially the same in origin, because we recognize
the appreciable difference in the blood of one specie, genus, or family, as each
blood differs from every other kind. So today with protoplasm; and the continuity theory suffers catastrophic
collapse" (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, pp. 25, 36).
Thus
evolution suffers miserable demolition in the realm of its second postulate.
__________
*Let
no evolutionist be so foolish as to think that he can appeal to the original
life germ. The life germ is not a protozoan, for it is not an animal. It is a
reproductive cell, distinguishable from a body cell. Even after fertilization,
the original germ has not the power of independent life as has the protozoan;
and would never be mistaken for a protozoan by any trained scientist.
__________
(3)
Evolution Cannot Prove or Even Explain the Transmutation of One Family Into
Another.
The
larger unit of the family is mentioned here because, as
indicated previously, the term species has been used sometimes in the sense of
varieties; and there can be no reasonable doubt that multitudes of varieties
have developed within the Genesis kinds. Perhaps genera could be safely used
here instead of family. But the term family is used in order to be on sure
ground.
First
of all, the evolutionist cannot find intervening forms between the families
among the fossils. This is too well known to require more than mere statement.
In
the second place, extensive experimentation, involving selective breeding,
inbreeding, crossbreeding, and change of environment, has
not produced a single new and distinctive kind. Crossing has occurred between
varieties of fruits and vegetables, producing new varieties; but the new variety
was still a fruit or a vegetable. Tall yellow peas have been crossed with dwarf
green peas with the result that tall green peas and dwarf yellow peas have been
produced; but the hybrids were still peas. Much experimentation has been
conducted with fruit flies, and mutations have been
produced; but the mutants still belonged to the same kind- they did not become
houseflies, horseflies, June bugs, or bumblebees. A cross between two members of
the horse family (Equidae) produces the mule; but here, even though the cross is
between two closely related genera of the same family, nature protests by making
the hybrid mule sterile. Where fertile mutants and hybrids are possible, under
natural conditions there is always a strong tendency toward
reversion to original type. This nullifies Darwin's much-heralded natural
selection.
Change
of environment is even more futile in effecting mutations. George McCready
Price, in his Q.E.D., tells of a German botanist who transplanted 2,500 kinds of
mountain plants to the lowlands, and studied them for years
in connection with related kinds in the lowlands. He found that the mountain
environment had made absolutely no permanent or significant change in their
structures or habits.
The
conclusion of the whole matter is that evolutionists cannot prove the
transmutation of family, nor can they give a scientific
explanation of how it could occur.*
(4)
Evolution Cannot Explain Why Certain Kinds of Life Have Shown No Evolution.
The
fossil record preserved for us in the rock formations of the earth show that
certain present-day forms of life have been the same from
the beginning. Among these we have the protozoa, as already indicated. They
throng the earth and exist in many varieties, but one variety never becomes
another, nor does a protozoa ever become a metazoa. Another instance of
non-evolution is found in coral polps. These insects have been working since the
era known in uniformitarian geology as the Silurian period, which is supposed to
have occurred millions of years ago. Great masses of coral have been excavated in inland areas and thus date back to the
time when the sea covered the given area; yet "the present day descendants of
the Silurian coral animals are identical with their Silurian ancestors!"
(Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, p. 81). The same is
true of primitive algae from the same Silurian period, crayfish from the
Carboniferous age, grasshoppers, preserved in the famous Grasshopper Glacier of
Montana, a mosquito preserved in a moss agate which is
supposed to have been formed "when the earth was young," many varieties of
insects petrified and preserved in amber formed from resin that dripped from
pre-historic trees similar to pine or gum, and of giant sharks and immense
whales embedded in rock on the Pacific Coast several thousand feet above sea
level and some forty miles from the beach.
*That
the student may better understand the terms used in the foregoing discussion it
is thought best here to list in order the terms used in biological
differentiation in the animal kingdom. From the larger to the smaller groups the
names used are as follows: Phylum, Subphylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
__________
(5)
Evolution Cannot Explain the Universal Law of Retrogression Instead of
Progression.
This
law holds true with reference to civilization. Archeology
has revealed that the farther down the excavator goes the higher the type of
civilization he finds evidence of.
In
the animal kingdom the law is not, as evolution would assert, progress from the
small to the large or from the weak to the strong. It is just the reverse. The
largest modem elephant is a pigmy in comparison with the Elephas imperator of the distant past. The present-day sloth is a
small creature, but the giant sloth (Megatherium) of geological history weighed
tons! The modern dragon fly or mosquito hawk is the modem representative of
fossil dragon flies with a wing spread of eighteen inches. The great Saber-tooth
tiger that once roamed California shows some evidence of having been the
progenitor of present diminutive wild cat of the Pacific Coast.
All
of this is dead against the theory of evolution; but it is exactly in harmony
with the revelation of the Bible that giant men once lived on the earth and that
men were once so strong that they sometimes lived more than nine hundred years.
These
are just a few of the potent scientific objections that can be brought against
the foolish fallacy of evolution. Space forbids that we deal with the many other
scientific reasons for rejecting this unscientific imagination.
3.
THE HOAX OF GEOLOGICAL AGES EXPOSED.
We
are now about to storm the very citadel of evolution. It is to fossils preserved
in rocks that the evolutionist must look for his chief and only real proof. That
this is true is shown by the following quotations from qualified authorities:
"The
direct evidence furnished by fossil remains, is by all odds, the strongest
evidence that we have in favor of organic evolution" (Morgan, A Critique of the
Theory of Evolution, p. 24).
"While
the comparative study of living animals and plants may give
very convincing evidence, fossils provide only historical, documentary evidence
that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms" (Part II- Historical
Geology, p. 23, in A Textbook of Geology, by Schuchert and Dunbar).
Uniformitarian
geology is the outgrowth of the philosophy of naturalism as
opposed to supernaturalism. It follows the method of "explaining the past and
the present from a subjective standpoint (Zittle, History of Geology, p. 23). It
takes the fractional sedimentary deposits found in various parts of the earth,
which are never more than a few miles thick; and, by presuming to be able to
compute the comparative age of each stratum of rock, it pieces together an
imaginary series of sedimentary rock envelopes or "onion
coats" covering the earth to a depth of perhaps one hundred miles.* Then it
calculates the length of time that it took for this sedimentary rock to form on
the basis of the rate of deposition today, which it calculates to be about a
foot in two hundred years. By this method it arrives at a figure between
80,000,000 and 100,000,000 as the minimum age for the lowest strata of
sedimentary rock.** From this, then, the age of each stratum
is determined.
Let
us note the glaring falsity of this method of procedure and of the supposed
proofs of evolution that it furnishes.
(1)
The Method of Determining the Order in Which Various Strata
Were Deposited is False.
Uniformitarian
geologists have had recourse to three methods in determining the order of
deposition: the materials of which deposits are composed, the order of
superimposition, and the fossil content of deposits. No one of these can be
relied upon by itself, and it is the cunning way in which they are combined
that shows the falsity of the whole method.
Full
reliance cannot be placed on material composition alone,
__________
*See
A Textbook on Geology (Garrels, p. 297, Harper &
Brothers, New York.
**ibid,
P. 298.
__________
because
evidence from the other two sources sometimes contradicts
this evidence. Then superimposition cannot be fully relied upon because the
various strata are not continuous and because some are missing in every deposit.
Moreover their vertical order is very often reversed. Thus evolutionists turn to
fossils as their chief indicator of the order of deposition. But here again full
dependence is denied them, for, as George McCready Price points out:
"Any
kind of fossiliferous rock, 'old' or 'young,' may occur conformably on any other
kind of fossiliferous rock, 'older' or 'younger'" (Evolutionary Geology, p. 160)
However,
despite this fact, in the last analysis, fossils alone determine the order of
deposition. And in using fossils as an age-indicator,
evolution is assumed to be true. Thus uniformitarian geologists proceed in a
circle. They assume the truth of evolution, and then proceed to prove it by a
geological sequence that is largely arranged in an arbitrary manner. Any
thinking person can see the utter falsity of this hoax.
(2)
The Method Used for Determining the Time Required for the
Deposition of Sediment is False.
It
is assumed that the rate through the past was the same that it is today. That
means that evolutionary geologists assume that there have not been conditions,
catastrophes, and cataclysms that could have produced a more
rapid rate of deposition. Later we shall notice that there are indications both
in fossils and elsewhere that the rate of deposition has not remained uniform.
(3)
Most of the Great Mountain Chains Show at Their Summits What Uniformitarian
Geologists Consider Youngest Strata.
See
Evolutionary Geology (Price), p. 155. Thus the uplifting of these mountains must
be considered "young" or recent in the geological time scale. This is a puzzle
to evolutionists, as indicated by Dana:
"It
has been thought incredible that the orthographic climax should have come so
near the end of geological time, instead of in an early age when the crust had a
plastic layer beneath, and was free to move; yet the fact is beyond question"
(Manual, p. 1020).
(4)
On the Ocean Floor the "Youngest" and "Oldest" Fossils Lie
Mingled.
See
same reference given under (3). This is interpreted by evolutionists as showing
how slowly ooze accumulates on the ocean floor. But it is a better indication
that the fossils are of the same recent age.
(5)
The Conformability and Blending of Many Successive Strata Show That There Was No
Great Lapse of Time Between Their Deposition.
If
the upper surface of a given stratum is level and comparatively smooth so it and
the stratum next above it agree with each other in their
planes of bedding, where there is no evidence of erosion on the lower stratum,
the two are said to be conformable. This means that the upper one must have been
laid down before any great lapse of time between it and the lower one. Then
often there is a blending of successive strata which seems to indicate that the
lower was still in a moist and plastic condition when the upper one was
deposited upon it.
(6)
It is Becoming Increasingly Apparent That Many Species of Animals, Formerly
Considered Extinct, Have Representatives in the Modern World.
Evolutionists
have used the case of extinct animals to bolster their idea of vast ages for
life on the earth. But the sand is giving way under them
here. Post-pliocene mollusks have been found to be identical with living
species.
"Pictet
catalogues ninety-eight species of mammals which inhabited Europe in the post
glacial period. Of these, fifty-seven still exist unchanged. . ." (Fairhurst,
Theistic Evolution, P. 99).
In
many cases evolutionists have based their conclusion as to extinct species on
the most flimsy evidence. If modern forms were not precisely like fossil forms,
they have been classed as separate species. This caused even Mr. Darwin to say:
"It
is notorious on what excessively slight differences many paleontologists have
founded their species."
(7)
The Abundance of Fossils Preserved in Rocks Stand Against the Fragmentary
Specimens Now Being Buried.
This
is indicative that the fossil record was not made by the slow processes working
today. Moreover the remarkable preservation of fossils argues for interment
under very abnormal conditions. Viewing the matter from a slightly different
viewpoint leads to a similar conclusion, as shown by Clark, in speaking of deposits in the "High Plains" of the United States
as follows:
"The
appearance indicates that great erosive forces carved the general contour of the
rocks, after which vast streams of water, overloaded with sediment, built up the
alluvial plains above the eroded surface. Normal conditions
would not produce this situation. Violent water action is required to spread
this sand and gravel so widely and so thickly" (New Diluvialism, p. 29).
(8)
Fossils Give Evidence of Violent and Sudden Death.
The
evidence of this flows from the fact that many Trilobite fossils are found
tightly rolled up into a ball as for protection, indicative of a defensive spasm
into which they threw themselves because of exposure to a violently destructive
force. Then there are fishes whose figures show contortion, contraction, and
curving; their tails in many instances being bent around their heads, their
spines sticking out, and their fins fully spread, indicating
that they died in convulsions. Mass destruction is also indicated in the fossil
record, and this betokens violence.
(9)
Coal Formations Indicate Quick Violent Action Rather Than A Slow Process.
Evolutionary
Geologists supposed that coal was formed from peat that was
produced during long ages in swamps through the accumulation of leaves, stems,
and plants. They must suppose that while the peat was forming there was a slow
subsidence of the area. But it is not easy for them to explain the reason for
such a vast accumulation in one place. It is estimated that it takes from five
to fifteen feet of vegetable matter to make one foot of coal. There are some
coal beds forty feet or more thick. This would have required
from 200 to 450 feet of peat. Moreover there are instances of 117 successive
seams of coal. But the strongest evidence of quick action lies in the fact that
trees extend up through seams of coal. In an English coal mine there is a tree
114 feet high. This tree could not have grown thus through long ages in a peat
bog. Sometimes trees have been found extending through several seams of coal and
their intervening rock strata. All of this is indicative of
quick violent action in the entombing of the vegetation that made our coal.
4.
WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF ALL THIS?
The
conclusion of all these indications of the falsity of
uniformitarian geology is, to put it bluntly, that the flood described in
Genesis accounts for the vastly greater part of sedimentary rocks and the
fossils they contain.
When
one contemplates the probable causes of the precipitation of the vast store of
vapor that had been held in suspension somewhere above the
earth, the meaning of the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, and
the calculated effect of the vast tides that swept back and forth over the
earth, it is not hard to visualize forces and agencies that can account for
geological formations.
There
may have been a near-approach of a huge comet that caused
the precipitation of the vast belt of moisture. The inclination of the earth's
axis may have been suddenly altered temporarily, sending great tides of water
sweeping over the earth. The shrinking of the earth's crust may have caused
underground streams to burst through, thus greatly disrupting the face of the
earth. Water entering the bowels of the earth through volcanic craters may have
caused great internal disturbance.
At
any rate, the flood of the Bible gives the most satisfactory explanation of all
observed facts.
This
implies that the flood was world-wide, and this is the plain meaning of Genesis.
To say that there was not enough water to cover the whole
earth and submerge all mountains, is to presume that we know how high the
mountains were at the time. It has been estimated that there is enough water on
the earth to cover it to a depth of two miles if it were level. That figure
could be far too small. Who can tell just how much water there is now suspended
in the atmosphere and hidden in underground streams? The author prefers the
Bible to any word of man. And he takes his stand on it
against every theory that even questions the accuracy of its chronology wherever
such is given, making reasonable allowance for errors of transcription.