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.