21. MAN HAIRLESS AND TAILLESS
How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin"s explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because, naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and, finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do sensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? If we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers. Hence, not the males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin"s day, who did not believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great abundance.
The best way to get rid of the hair of the brute is for some reconstructing artist, like Prof. J. H. McGregor, to take it off. In a picture widely copied by books in favor of evolution, photographed from his "restorations," the pithecanthropus, the Neanderthal man, and the Cro-Magnon man are represented almost without hair on the body or even without beard. Only the Neanderthal man has a tiny Charlie Chaplin mustache. Their hair had not been combed for 1,000,000 years; yet we could not detect it. A sympathetic artist can make a "restoration" suit his fancy and support any theory.
If we are descended from simian stock, how did we come to lose our tails? Would not the same causes, if any, cause all the species to lose their tails? According to the laws of biometry, ought we not to find a retrogression of sections of the human race, who would sport simian tails and be clothed with simian hair? Or, could natural selection explain the loss of the tail on the ground that all the monkeys with tails died off, while the tailless ones survived, and developed into human beings? In that case, a tail must have been a fatal imperfection.
22. HYBRIDS
"Hybrids would seem to be nature"s most available means of producing new species." Yet the sterility of hybrids defeats that possibility, and rebukes the untruthful claim of the formation of new species. Nature, with sword in hand, decrees the death of hybrids, lest they might produce a new species. Moses wrote the rigid unchanging law of nature, when he said that every living creature would bring forth "after its kind."
Species are immutable. One does not become another, or unite with another to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed to produce another species. A few species, so nearly related that we can scarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jacka.s.s and the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile. The zebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewise sterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediate between species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget an ape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species.
If evolution be true, we would expect a frequent interbreeding and interchanging of species. Even Darwin admitted that species are immutable. G.o.d declared it in his word, and stamps it indelibly on every species. "And G.o.d said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after its kind"."-Gen. 1:24. How did Moses know this great truth, unless he was told by inspiration of G.o.d?
Even plant-hybrids are not permanent. Darwin himself says: "But plants not propagated by seed, are of little importance to us, for their endurance is only temporary."
Even if it could be proven that species, like varieties, are formed by development, it does not follow that genera and families and cla.s.ses are so developed. But it has not been proved that a single species has been added by development, much less orders, families and genera. Evolution must account for every division and sub-division to plant and animal life. Darwin answers the objection to the sterility of hybrids by saying, "We do not know." "But why," he says, "in the case of distinct species, the s.e.xual elements should so generally have become more or less modified, leading to their mutual infertility, we do not know." But G.o.d knows.
23. THE INSTINCT OF ANIMALS
The instinct of animals is not due to their own intelligence. It is unerring, unchangeable, without improvement or deterioration. It implies knowledge and wisdom of the highest order. It is beyond the wisdom of man. It comes direct from G.o.d. It is not learned nor gained by experience. It is found in many species of animals, and even in a child, until knowledge and reason make it unnecessary.
One of the most familiar ill.u.s.trations is the instinct of the honey bee. It builds its cells in exact geometric form and we compute, by Calculus, that the form it uses produces the greatest capacity in proportion to the amount of material used. Who taught the bee to build its cell, displaying greater knowledge than that of many a college graduate? Darwin says (Origin of Species), "It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely those of the honey bee, could not possibly have been acquired by habit." We quote from Granville"s Calculus, p. 119: "We know that the shape of a bee cell is hexagonal, giving a certain capacity for honey with the greatest possible economy of wax." This is demonstrated by the solution of a problem in this same Calculus. Darwin again says (Origin of Species, vol. I, p. 342), "We hear from mathematicians, that bees have practically solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. It has been remarked that a skilful workman, with fitting tools and measures, would find it very difficult to make cells of wax of the true form, though this is effected by a crowd of bees, working in a dark room. Each cell, as is well known, is a hexagonal prism, with the basal edges of its six sides, beveled so as to join an inverted pyramid of three rhombs. These rhombs have certain angles, and the three which form the pyramidal base of a single cell on one side of the comb, enter into the composition of the bases of the three adjoining cells on the opposite side."
Can any one suggest an improvement or show an imperfection? If this intelligence is the bee"s own, which is far superior to that of the ape, why did not the bee develop a human brain?
Yet in spite of Darwin"s admission, he labors hard to show that "There is no real difficulty under changing conditions of life, in natural selection acc.u.mulating to any extent slight modifications of instinct which are in any way useful"! How could the working bee conserve the gains acc.u.mulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and the queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither parent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their knowledge or their habits to the working bee? Every new swarm of bees would not know how to build their cells. There is no improvement from generation to generation. Even if instinct in other animals could be accounted for, evolution can not account for the instinct of the working bees, since they are not descendants of other working bees, from which they might inherit habits or instinct.
Is not the instinct of the bee the intelligence of G.o.d, disproving the heresy of an absentee G.o.d? Here again we get a glimpse of the unerring wisdom of G.o.d.
The immoveable oyster, the bee alive with divine intelligence, and the sterile progeny of the jacka.s.s, are enough to upset the whole theory of evolution.
24. SPECIAL CREATION: GEN. I
Evolution can not be true, because it contradicts the inspired word of G.o.d. We do not speak arbitrarily and say, without proof, that whatever contradicts the revealed word of G.o.d can not be true, although such an att.i.tude could be easily defended. Disregarding all the many other cogent and legitimate arguments in support of a divine revelation, we will appeal to the remarkable harmony between the story of Creation in Genesis and the modern sciences. This could not be, if G.o.d had not revealed to Moses the story of creation. Moses personally knew nothing revealed by the sciences of today. And the man of that day who would invent the story of creation, would be sure to conflict with one or more of the following modern sciences: geology, astronomy, zoology, biology, geography, chemistry, physics, anatomy, philology, archaeology, history, ethics, religion, etc. There is not one chance in a million that a writer of a fict.i.tious account would not have run amuck among many of these sciences, if, like Moses, he had no personal knowledge of them.
Although the Babylonian account may have had some foundation in fact, from a tradition of a prior revelation, it plainly bears the marks of error. "The Babylonian stories of creation are full of grotesque and polytheistic ideas, while those of the Bible speak only of the one living and true G.o.d." "All things," the Babylonian legend says, "were produced at the first from Tiamat." "The G.o.ds came into being in long succession, but, at length, enmity arose between them and Tiamat, who created monsters to oppose them. Merodach, a solar deity, vanquished Tiamat, cut her body in two, and with one-half of it made a firmament supporting the upper waters in the sky, etc., etc." The Babylonian G.o.ds, like even those of the cla.s.sics, were criminals fit only for prison or death.
Alfred Russell Wallace, who, with Darwin, devised the evolution theory, says: "There must have been three interpositions of a Divine and supernatural power to account for things as they are: _the agreement of science with Genesis is very striking_: There is a gulf between matter and nothing; one between life and the non-living; and a third between man and the lower creation; and science can not bridge them!"
This "striking agreement" between science and Genesis I, is shown by the fact that at least 11 great events are enumerated in the same order as claimed by modern science: 1. The earth was "waste and void"; 2. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep"; 3. Light appears; 4. A clearing expanse, or firmament; 5. The elevation of the land and the formation of the seas; 6. Gra.s.s, herbs and fruit trees appear; 7. The sun, moon and stars _appear_; 8. Marine animals were created; 9. "Winged fowls" were created; 10. Land animals were created; 11. Man was created.
The chance of guessing the exact order of these 11 great events is ascertained by the law of permutations-the product of the numbers from 1 to 11, which is 39,916,800. Therefore, Moses had one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess the correct order of these 11 great events, as revealed both by science and revelation. If, for example, the first 11 letters of the alphabet were arranged in some unknown miscellaneous order, any one would have but one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess the order. If Moses did not have the order revealed to him, he never could have guessed it. Therefore, he was inspired and was told the order.
This mathematical demonstration annihilates the contradicting theory of evolution. At once it proves that the account was divinely inspired, and man came by special creation and not by evolution. The fact that the language of Genesis is in remarkable harmony with all proven modern scientific theories, and manifestly confirmed by them, is a proof in favor of the creation story, decisive and final.
This harmony is manifest whether the Heb. _yom_, day, be taken to mean a long period, as advocated by many biblical scholars, or a literal day of 24 hours, followed, it may be, by years or ages of continuance of the work, before the next day"s work of 24 hours began.
Believing that this interpretation does no violence to the text, and that it is especially in harmony with the statements in the fourth commandment and elsewhere in the Bible, it is here briefly presented as one interpretation, showing the marvelous harmony between revelation and the proven, and even the generally accepted, scientific theories. The stately procession of events is the same, no matter which interpretation is accepted, and doubtless will remain, even if both must yield to another and better interpretation. This majestic divine order, in harmony with both science and revelation, removes all doubt of special creation.
Another interpretation, advocated by many scholars, is that all geologic ages may have intervened during the time indicated between the 1st and 2nd verses of Gen. I.
The following is a possible, and, it would seem, a probable interpretation of the inspired creation story. The words of Scripture, whether from the American Revision, or marginal rendering of the original Hebrew, or other translation, are put in quotation marks:--
THE CREATION--GENERAL STATEMENT
"In the beginning G.o.d created the heavens and the earth," including the sun, moon and stars, and all other matter in any form.
DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE ORDER OF CREATION
"And the earth was waste and void," literally "desolation and emptiness." And, on account of the thick vapors in the hot atmosphere, "darkness was upon the face of the deep," and doubtless had been for ages.
"And the Spirit of G.o.d was brooding upon the face of the waters," and _perhaps_ was calling into being the lowest forms of marine life.
The First Day"s Work. Light Appears.
"And G.o.d said, "Let the light appear"," through the thick vapors. And the light appeared, so that the day could now be distinguished from the night. "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day."
This day did not need to be an age or even 24 hours for G.o.d"s work. How long did it take light to appear? Many years, and even ages, may have followed between each day"s work as the "days" were not necessarily consecutive, and it is not so stated.
Second Day"s Work. A Clearing Expanse.
"And G.o.d said, "Let there be a clearing expanse (called heaven) dividing the waters which were on the earth from the waters in the thick clouds above, firmly suspended in the air"." This may have continued a long time, though begun in 24 hours.
Third Day"s Work. Land, sea and vegetation appear.
"And G.o.d said, "Let the waters under the expanse be gathered together into one place (seas and oceans), and let the dry land appear"." The contraction of the cooling earth caused the elevation of the land, and the draining of the waters into the seas. The geologist Lyell says, "All land has been under water." Hitchc.o.c.k says, "The surface of the globe has been a sh.o.r.eless ocean." "And the earth brought forth gra.s.s, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind." Though the sun was not yet visible on account of dense clouds and vapors, the warm, humid atmosphere was suitable for the gra.s.s, herbs, and fruit trees,--three great cla.s.ses which represented the vegetable kingdom. Ages may have again intervened.
The Fourth Day"s Work. Sun, moon and stars made visible.
"And G.o.d said, "Let lights be seen in the open expanse of heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years"." "And G.o.d made the two great lights to _appear_," since neither had been seen through the thick clouds, "the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also to _appear_." Though created first, the stars would appear last. Ages more may have intervened.