OPPOSING VIEWS ON ORIGIN -- RIVAL CLAIMS -- CONFLICTING EVIDENCE -- AN UNENVIABLE CHOICE -- MERYCHIPPUS -- HUXLEY'S ANALOGY -- INTERESTING CALCULATIONS

In the previous chapter we referred to geology as a "friend" of the evolutionist.

Now we have no wish to quarrel with geology or any other branch of learning, but we feel that a use is made of geology by the evolutionists which is unwarranted by facts. Let us explain what we mean. You will find in most geological text books a well set-out table showing alleged periods of time during which various layers of earth and rock have been super-imposed one upon another so that the various strata now envelop the globe like the layers of an onion. Each layer and age has a name--an impressive name--with which we will not trouble you because we want to keep the main issues clear.

			A Speculative Chart
				This is a composite chart. The background shows the alleged order of geological strata as Eocene, etc.; while superimposed upon this background is a genealogical tree purporting to show the parallel development of animal life from a common stock.

If that were true, it would give us serious food for thought. BUT IT IS FALSE! Everything found at any time in any place, in any stratum, has always been a distinct species. Further than that, there is a mollusc which was contemporary with the very earliest stratum and is still contemporary with us today absolutely unchanged. You would like our evidence? You shall have it. Our witness? None other than Charles Darwin himself.

"Some groups (of Molluscs), as we have seen, have endured from the earliest known dawn of life to the present day . . . in the genus lingula, for instance, the species which have successively appeared at all ages must have been connected by an UNBROKEN SERIES OF GENERATIONS FROM THE LOWEST SILURIAN STRATUM TO THE PRESENT DAY."

CHRISTIAN CREDULITY

And so, where these imposing and learned looking "CHARTS" are supposed to teach transitional descent, they ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED. No, not even when they appear to have the sanction of great men. Experience teaches us the folly of yielding unquestioning belief because of the prestige of great names--the folly of being too credulous.

"What!" says a cynical evolutionist, "I always thought that you Christians were the most credulous people imaginable, believing as you do in miracles and all sorts of incredible stories."

We should like to say to any such, that unbelief is far more credulous than genuine belief--as distinct from mere religious emotion. There are countless persons who have been convinced of the Bible's origin and authorship as a result of critical and exhaustive investigations of its claims. We have even heard of a learned man who set out to study the Bible in order to overthrow its teaching, but who, in the process, was himself overthrown and surrendered to its claims.

But we have yet to meet an honest man who became an unbeliever after such a personal inquiry into the Bible's revelation. Yes, we live and learn--but, we repeat, we have yet to meet one. Our experience of unbelief is that it is shallow, half informed, rebellious against anything divine, and DETERMINED TO DISBELIEVE AT ALL COSTS. Yes, there are exceptions, and it is in the hope of arousing interest in any such that this book appears.

After this digression, let us return to the so called "onion-coat" theory of the earth. It was originated by A. G. Werner, a teacher of minerology in Freiburg, Germany.

DOWN-SIDE UP

Werner found the rocks and earth layers in his particular district occurring in a certain order. He thenceforth concluded that they were to be found in the same order all over the earth's surface.

At first, many geologists were inclined to believe this, but it has since been discovered that this strict order is by no means general. Indeed, we have the declaration of Professor George M'Cready Price to the contrary. He says:

"In very numerous cases, and over hundreds and even thousands of square miles, the conformable conditions specified in the previous fact are EXACTLY UPSIDE DOWN; THAT IS, VERY 'OLD' ROCKS OCCUR --ON TOP OF VERY 'YOUNG' ROCKS." (Vide "Evolution," Sims, page 18.)

And so you see the "onion" coats of the earth are not only variable, but in some cases entirely reversed. Darwin also was fully alive to the uncertainty of the geological evidence. In one place, making one of his usual excuses for being unable to substantiate an idea, he says:

"The explanation . . . extreme imperfection of the geological record." ("Origin of Species," page 248.)

Hence we suggest the testimony of the rocks must be suspect.

Geology as such may be a perfectly honest science, but men can make mistakes. Even for this we do not blame them, for it has been truly said that a man who never made a mistake, never made anything! But we do blame them when THEY SEEK TO BUILD UP FACTS FROM THEORIES; especially when such alleged "facts" challenge real and well established truths.

Now let us illustrate the danger of drawing conclusions from what might appear a very innocent and reliable science. A Mr. J. J. Sims wrote in Evolution, page 30:

"The evolutionist, as we have seen, is the champion 'guesser' of the world. Take, for instance, the question of the age of any special stratum; the guesses range from 10,000 years to 1,000,000, or as H. G. Wells puts it, from 4,000,000 to 40,000,000 years. A skeleton was found under layers of sand, gravel and clay in the Mississippi delta. The scientists 'guessed' it was 50,000 years old. They said, let us dig on and we will find something wonderful. They dug deeper and found a Mississippi flatboat."

Surely that is sufficient to make one hesitate to accept unreservedly the findings of the evolutionary geologist. But we have some even more damaging facts yet.

THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA

The "evolution" of the horse is one of the things that they have "proved" by the alleged occurrence of its bones in the various earth strata. The horse, they say, was once the size of a rat but gradually--during periods of 100,000 years each--it grew to its present size. During this time it gradually dropped its toes, being left at last with only one. The nail on this remaining toe grew and grew into one big horny toenail which is now the horse's hoof.

The "links" claimed as proving this were "reconstructions" of bones--skull, a tooth, a few bones and an incomplete skeleton. That word reconstruction again. It reminds us painfully of Pithecanthropus and it makes us suspicious also--and not without reason--as we will now show.

The evolutionist claims that the horse's rat -- like progenitor began life 3,000,000 years ago:

"The horse began 3,000,000 years ago in the Eocene (one of the onion coat layers). There are twelve main links connecting him with that remote epoch." ("Evolution," Sims, page 13.)

After this, Mr. Sims tells us that a genuine fossilized horse's hoof was found in a coal mine in Scofield, Utah. It was not a hoof in process of evolution; neither was it a "fragment." It was whole; it was fully developed and it was very old because it was found in a very early stratum, the Triassic.

Now the Triassic formation in which this hoof was found is just a million years older than the Eocene in which it is alleged the rat-horse began its career. Thus we are confronted with this proposition.

The horse which began evolving from a rat-like size with five toes, three million years ago, was already fully evolved four million years ago. To the ordinary reader we would say: we will not press the point, but we would urge upon you the danger of jumping to the absurd conclusions of some geologists. Remember, GEOLOGY IS NOT A FINISHED SCIENCE.

But addressing our remarks now to the evolutionist we would say: this case presents you with a dilemma, a dilemma has two proverbial horns, and on one of them you must take your seat. Neither will be very comfortable, but you have only yourself to blame.

Is the "onion coat" theory true upon which you rely for many of your finds? If you insist that it is still true, then your "evolved horse" is a figment because IT HAD EVOLVED BEFORE IT STARTED TO EVOLVE!

If however you stick to your rat-horse story, then the "ONION-COAT " THEORY OF GEOLOGY IS A DELUSION: and you must not use it any more to confirm the age of your "finds." Well, there are your alternatives. You cannot have it both ways: there are the dilemma's horns -- you must choose the one you find most comfortable.

MUTUAL FAILURE

It becomes quite evident then that geology has failed to show the gradual fossil changes which the evolutionist so ardently desires -- so ardently as continually to make the wish father to the thought. Neither has any traceable gradual change in fossils demonstrated geology's claim to reveal the various ages of the earth's strata. Both arguments rely on one another and both have failed to give mutual support or corroboration.

The alleged horse links have been hopefully exploited to show how, from age to age, in stratum to stratum, a gradual change in fossil horses is observable. It sounds all right, especially when professors assure you of its truth. But we are DEALING WITH EVIDENCE, NOT OPINIONS.

Here we would like to recount what happened at The Victoria Institute a few years ago, recorded in "Evolution Criticised," by Mr. Bishop. It appears that some visitors had been treated to some far-fetched assertions whose basis in fact was (as it so often is) nebulous and unintelligible to the lay mind, even if it was a highly intelligent lay mind, and only untechnical upon a specialised subject, as indeed it was in this case. The critic was the president, Lord Halsbury, who had become thoroughly exasperated at the high-handed didactic pronouncements of certain professors whose remarks were lost in the clouds of their own superior transcendentalism. Lord Halsbury rose to protest in the following telling phrases:

A LAWYER DEMANDS EVIDENCE

"I wish to make a general protest against the notion that a gentleman who calls himself a 'professor' . . . is thereby placed in a position of authority, and can make statements WITHOUT A PARTICLE OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEM. I may be prejudiced in my view by my experience as a lawyer, but IN COURT WE ARE EXPECTED TO GIVE FULL PROOF IN SUPPORT OF EVERY ASSERTION, AND IF WE DO NOT, IT IS NATURALLY ASSUMED THAT IT IS BECAUSE WE CANNOT DO SO. A 'professor,' on the other hand, appears to consider himself relieved from any such anxiety. He seems to think that all he has to do is to say that such and such is the case, and he being a professor, he cannot be contradicted or brought to book. If anyone brings forward an argument on the other side, the 'professor' says his opponent has made a mistake; but being a 'professor' he does not consider himself obliged to substantiate even this assertion."

This will serve admirably to define our attitude. We also want evidence. And at this particular time WE WANT THE EVIDENCE for the evolution of the horse, a subject supposed to be the best supported by fossil remains, of any.

Where is and what is the evidence? We have never yet seen or heard of any. The general impression left upon our mind on this subject is about as CONVINCING AS THE FABLE OF THE PHOENIX: or a more modern example, the Indian rope-trick. You can find plenty of witnesses who knew someone who had seen it, but you never seem able to run that much-desired person to earth.

These alleged "links" are, as usual, fossil fragments: or when whole or nearly whole skeletons, they are obviously species. Many critics have said that these supposed successive links may easily all have lived contemporaneously. But the links--where are the links? They are the key to the whole subject. One may well ask where they are!

NOTHING BUT TEETH

Only one link seems to be seriously claimed, and like the Java-man it has been honoured with an impressive name to show its actuality. Its name is Merychippus. What have they to show to justify its name--what is the evidence? A FEW TEETH AND A PRETENTIOUS NAME!

A few extracts from Mr. Bishop's book, "Evolution Criticised," will show the true nature of the horse story.

"The pedigree of the horse tribe is brought forward prominently in all books on evolution as convincing proof of the theory. . . . This pedigree is, however, criticised very sharply by Dr. Albert Fleishmann, professor of Zoology in Erlangen, in his 'Die Descendenztheorie.' He says: 'How have the Equidae been evolved out of older forms? AS AN INTERMEDIATE FORM WE FIND MERYCHIPPUS NAMED, and upon this Haeckel and Schlosser lay especial weight . . . but when we ask what was the outward form of Merychippus, we only get the reply that the teeth were formed after the type of the horse. WHEN WE ENQUIRE AS TO THE LIMBS, THE SKELETON, THE SKULL, WE GET NO INFORMATION. NOTHING IS KNOWN OF MERYCHIPPUS BUT THE TEETH'."

Upon which Deperet announced: "The supposed pedigree of the Equidae is A DECEITFUL DELUSION." Yes, their much advertised horse pedigree is a "delusion," a myth, a legend, a modern version of the fabled Phoenix story!

THE TESTIMONY OF THE ROCKS

Be well and truly assured that THE TESTIMONY OF THE ROCKS is not a testimony to transition; but in each and every case where fossil remains are identifiable, it is A TESTIMONY TO THE IMMUTABILITY OF SPECIES. As to the age of the earth, the testimony of geology is not uniform or reliable. True, the rocks generally indicate a great age for the earth, and some fossil remains may have a greater antiquity than the creation of man. We say "may have" advisedly, for critics have been quick to hold the Genesis account responsible for saying that God made the earth only 6,000 years ago.

This is not true. The record of creation (which we have reason to believe was 6,000 years ago) opens its grand story with the earth in existence covered with water and darkness. How long it had existed and whether it had a previous animal and vegetable history we are not told. The matter is an open question. Therefore we do not intend to be wise above what is written or to make an attempt to defend or harmonize where no danger threatens, or discord exists.

But we do confidently re-affirm our contention that THE ROCKS, OLD OR NEW, PRE OR POST-ADAMIC, SHOW NO EVIDENCE OF GRADUAL EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. The testimony is all the other way. Here is what Dr. Morton quotes:

"Professor Branca of the Geological and Palaeontological Institute of Berlin University says, 'Man appeared suddenly in the Quarternary period. Palaeontology (study of fossils) tells us nothing on the subject--it knows nothing of the ancestors of man'. ("Evolution Disproved," page 85.)

This testimony is strengthened by that of another famous geologist of Canada, Sir William Dawson. He wrote:

"THE RECORD OF THE ROCKS IS DECIDEDLY AGAINST EVOLUTIONISTS. . . . Palaeontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. (This includes Merychippus, the fictitious horse.) NOTHING IS KNOWN ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF MAN EXCEPT WHAT IS TOLD IN SCRIPTURE." (Ibid., page 75.)

Thus the great hopes with which evolutionists set out to prove their organic evolution from lowly beginnings, written in the rocks, have been disappointing.

A FRUSTRATED SCIENTIST

Huxley was very hopeful and confident that if he could once get down to the earliest rocks, there he would find the evidence which he sought. He got down all right, but found that which he did not want. He found EVIDENCE OF CLEARLY DEFINED SPECIES, NOT TRANSITION: developed life, not incipient life.

What did he do then? Admit his error? No. He blamed the rocks: said they were unreliable, and that these finished forms of life were in a stratum, which although generally acknowledged to be the oldest, need not be at all. He seemed for all his greatness to have a petulant disposition, as already noticed in his "watch" objection. So upon the above recorded discoveries he wrote in self-defence:

"It is quite possible that the upper (stratum) may be any number of years older than the under, and the under any number of years younger than the upper... WE CAN NEVER BE SURE." ("Darwiniana," page 345.)

He then goes even further in destroying the science he once sought to build when he thought it could be used to bolster up evolution. Writing of the continual moving and disturbing of sedimentary deposits he said:

"IT FOLLOWS THAT OUR RECORD MUST BE IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE IMPERFECT. SUPPOSING EVEN THAT THE WHOLE SURFACE OF THE EARTH HAD BEEN ACCESSIBLE TO THE GEOLOGIST . . . AND HE HAD MADE SECTIONS OF THE WHOLE AND PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER, EVEN THEN HIS RECORD MUST OF NECESSITY BE IMPERFECT." ("Darwiniana," page 340.)

These are very useful and damaging admissions against evolution, coming as they do from one of its foremost evangelists, Professor T. H. Huxley.

EXCELLENT ADVICE

Thus you may get a glimpse of the spirit of the "EVOLUTION-AT-ANY-PRICE" MENTALITY. Geology is eagerly adopted as an infallible witness when confirmatory evidence is anticipated. But when the evidence turns out in an opposite direction, clearly postulating Creation, then of course it must be wrong because evolution must be right. How Sir Ambrose Fleming chides Huxley on this very trait in his character! Fleming quotes Huxley as saying:

"Sit down before fact like a little child. Be prepared to give up every pre-conceived notion, follow wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads you, or you shall learn nothing." ("Evolution or Creation," page 103.)

Then, knowing Huxley's love of Evolution to the exclusion of love of truth --particularly of Bible truth -- Sir Ambrose Fleming says:

"This unquestionably is very excellent advice, but the curious thing is Huxley himself and all those who follow his mode of thought, do not take the advice. They are content to ignore a whole range of facts of unspeakable importance in relation to human life, namely those recorded in the gospel narratives of the New Testament." (Ibid., page 103.)

And so it was that Huxley got down to his early geological beds, and failing to find his primitive beginnings, which, if his theory had been true, he had every right to expect to find, he petulantly declared:

"WE HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST PROOF that these which we call the oldest beds are really so."

And then, as if to reassure himself, he adds:

"I repeat, we have not the slightest proof of it." ("Darwiniana," page 378.)

PLENTY OF TIME

And so geology having failed him, he still mused on the possibility of spontaneous generation--little beginnings, big endings. Yes; and for this (said he) we must have time, plenty of time: that's the secret. It will hood wink the public, and help us to believe it also. Time! The thing that he resorted to in order to account for Paley's watch.

Put the beginning back far enough, and anything is possible. In any case the problem becomes more remote and remote things can be easily forgotten, whereas proximate problems are more insistent.

Professor Bateson, half seriously, half jestingly, admitted this when, as a quotation from "Bankruptcy of Evolution," page 133, puts it, it is

"Pleasanter to postpone the difficult, relegating the critical differentiation to some misty antiquity into which we shall not be asked to penetrate."

And in this spirit Huxley, undaunted by the geological let-down, seeks refuge again in aeons of time--"misty antiquity"--when he is sure that, IN SPITE OF THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, life began by the fusion of a "fortuitous concourse of atoms." In plain English, this means A COLOSSAL ACCIDENT!

In his eagerness to illustrate the possibility of blind chance operating in remote geological ages at the dawn of the world's history, he was betrayed into making another very foolish analogy. The key, again, is time: plenty of time.

MONKEY-TYPISTS

Thus Huxley is quoted by Sir James Jeans as declaring:

"Six monkeys, set to strum unintelligently on a typewriter for millions of millions of years, would be bound in time to write all the books in the British Museum . . . (and) if we looked through all the millions of pages the monkeys had turned off in untold millions of years, we might be sure of finding A SHAKESPEARE SONNET AMONG THEM: THE PRODUCT OF BLIND CHANCE."

And this, to illustrate how blind mechanical chance could juggle with a few chemical elements until, at last, after untold combinations in untold years, the miracle of life occurred!

Now we wonder if we can exactly realise what Huxley would have us believe? What is involved in this novel suggestion which seeks to show what can be done with "blind chance" if only it is given sufficient time? We can get just an inkling of what this illustration entails. To work the matter out mathematically, however, would be beyond the time at least of a mathematician--unless there were six mathematicians and they lived millions of years also.

SURPRISING CALCULATION

Now for a brief analysis of Huxley's assumption. First let us take a word used by him, i.e. M-O-N-K-E-Y-S. Do you realise in how many orders those seven letters could be arranged before you need put them in their above correct order? You may be surprised. They could be arranged in no less than 5,039 other ways; but there is no guarantee even then that the monkey would necessarily get the correct way in that number of times. He could go on repeating his incorrect ways.

Now we will take the matter a step further. For the sake of simplicity, we will imagine the typewriters to have only twenty-six small letters (the number in the alphabet from a to z). As a preliminary test, we set the monkeys "unintelligently strumming" until they can produce the alphabet in exactly correct order from a to z.

Do you realise in how many ways the alphabet could be typed, and every way be different? If you were surprised at the result of the seven's arrangement, you will be amazed at the possible disposition of twenty-six. It is no less than 403,291,461,126,605,635,594,000,000 different ways.

May we now, in order to establish the point, give one more example? Most will recognise these lines from Shakespeare:

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears, I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

There are here sixty-eight letters. We could observe, by the way, that the difficulties could be incalculably increased if we insisted on correct spacing, capitals, stops, etc. (Insistence on correct spacing, etc., would more than offset the extra number gained as a result of letter repetition in the sentence.) These, of course, would be needed in good writing. The spacing, for instance: the monkey might get near enough to write, "Icometo" instead of "I come to." But even if we waive all these complicating details, and allow the monkeys to type one long word like this:

friendsromanscountrymenlendmeyourearsicometo burycaesarnottopraisehim.

Even then, the chances are one in 2,480,035,542,436,830, 599,600,990,418,569,171,581,047,399,201,355,367,672,371, 710,738,018,221,445,712,183,296,000,000,000,000,000.

Now if you knock off the twelve noughts at the end of the figure, it would suffice over and over again to represent the number of times the monkeys could make the effort of writing the short sentence in a year: and that, working day and night at an incredible speed.

The remaining figure will give you the number of years necessary to achieve a successful reproduction of this elementary sentence.

This figure of course fantastically exceeds anything that has ever been claimed as the earth's age. So we see that we should certainly want time: especially for a book, then--all the books in the British Museum!

A DEAD LIBRARY

Now we think that this will be sufficient to indicate the staggering nature of Professor Huxley's implication. It helps us dimly to grasp the size of the pill we would have eventually to swallow if we were to accept his extravagant simile as true. It has its amusing side also, when we realise that it is the suggestion of a man who is not "credulous" and cannot believe "miracle": Do you not agree?

But suppose we could muster enough generosity to grant Professor Huxley's possibility. What then would he have given us? A library-a beautiful library it is true but still only a library. Moreover, and most important of all, it is a library of dead books. This "miracle" that Professor Huxley accomplished was by means of untold time, untold paper, six indestructable typewriters, and finally, six sentient wonderfully constructed living creatures: creatures whose existence he takes for granted and whose services he employs for millions of years: and the result of all this gratuitous assumption--A DEAD LIBRARY!

From this illustration he would have us believe in the production of an earth replete with life and every wonder of contrivance and design, that was caused by a "fortuitous concourse" of dead chemical atoms. In other words A DEAD CAUSE OF LIVING PHENOMENA!

But in order to facilitate our belief in this he had recourse to the opposite extreme. He needed six living monkeys to give us dead books! Surely the reasoning of Professor Huxley is grievously at fault.

BIGGEST MIRACLE OF ALL

If he had explained how a library could "spontaneously generate" and had given an illustration of self-manufacturing paper, self-made, self-composed, and self-working printing machines producing a library, then he would have had a better case. Such an illustration, of course, would be self-evidently ridiculous. His monkey illustration is not self-evidently ridiculous; its reasoning is specious, but none the less perfectly inadmissable. Because even if we allowed a self-evolved printing press producing a library, it would still fall short of what his theory requires. It still would lack life, which is the biggest miracle of all.

Professor Huxley requires not a self-made library, not even a living monkey, but a whole self-made Universe. How could he expect us to believe such a thing even if we had no alternative explanation? But we have. It is an explanation we share with that great scientist Lord Kelvin: LIFE CAME FROM LIFE: LIFE CAME FROM GOD. Yes, in the words of David:

"It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves." (Ps. 100:3.)

We trust that we have made our reasons clear why we reject such reasoning as Professor Huxley's as preposterous. Our reasons will doubtless become more self-evident after a little reflection. To those who have a regard for the scientist's opinions, we could quote Darwin. His words will, at least, show that our refusal to accept the explanation of "spontaneous generation" is not, this time, due to "lay dulness":

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of things is insoluble by us. And I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." ("Life and Letters." Vol. 1, page 312.)

Chapter 5