Why We Believe in Creation not in Evolution
by Fred John Meldau
CHAPTER 1.
THE CASE PRESENTED
"Development" and normal "growth" are not evolution. "Evolution" is often used to include the development and progress in inventions and industry, in such phrases as "the evolution of the telephone" or "the evolution of the automobile." The proper word to express such thoughts is "development."
Evolution Defined
Darwin defines organic evolution (p. 523, Origin of Species) as "the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one . . . primordial form."
Commenting on the views of Lamarck, Darwin approvingly said, "He upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species . . . all change in the organic world being the result of (natural) law and not of miraculous interposition."
The LINE OF DESCENT from the lower to the higher forms of life is often given (with some variations) as follows: Protozoa — primitive metazoa — worms — fish — amphibians — reptiles — birds — mammals — man. Some recent Zoology textbooks (as Storer and Usinger) no longer refer to "a line of descent" but they speak of "specialized forms" that descended from some supposed ancestral lines (now non-existent) from which all present forms of animal life arose. This is a meaningless evasion — an alternate approach that solves no problems. But always, the transmutation from the lower form of life to the higher pre-supposes the gradual change by natural, resident forces, unaided by any external, supernatural intervention.*
*Many today hold to a modified theory of evolution — "Theistic evolution." It is based on the assumption that the higher plants and animals developed from lower forms of life, and that this was God's way of creating all higher forms of life, including man. This we are convinced is not in accord with either the facts of nature or Scripture, hence must be rejected.
The Bible Teaching Set Forth
The Bible clearly teaches that God created the heavens and the earth, and all forms of life on earth, including man. He created plants and animals in various "kinds" (families and genera) and gave each "kind" the power to reproduce, but only "after its kind."* (See Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 25, 26-27).
* The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 for "create" is bara and infers Divine power. The Hebrew word for "kind" is min and obviously refers to a related group capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. It corresponds more to our word "genera" than "species" for some "species" according to recent classifications, do interbreed, with fertile offspring.
The statement that life as created by God should "bring forth after its kind" does not preclude the bringing forth of a great variety of that kind. For example, we have the canine "kind" in which are the related dogs (of many varieties), foxes, wolves, and hyenas.
Unfortunately, much confusion has resulted from the use of the word "evolution" to denote mere improvement of a species, or the development of new "varieties" within the species. Obviously, there are many "varieties" within each species — but to develop new
page 6
varieties is definitely NOT evolution. Evolution teaches the change, or transmutation, via a generally slow, gradual process of mutation, of one genus into another, the lower into the higher. It does NOT refer merely to the "improvement" of a species. The controversy then is NOT over the "improvement" of a species by interbreeding, nor the development of different "varieties" within the species, but over the evolution of a NEW genus or "kind," the new developing from the old, the higher from the lower.
"Species" Defined
Although there are some exceptions to the rule, the usual definition for "species" is that it is a population (a closely related group of animals or plants) which interbreed and produce fertile offspring." **
** See p. 4, "Evolution in the Genus Drosophila," Patterson and Stone; p. 120, "Systematics and the Origin of Species," Mayr; p.122, "Readings in Evolution, Genetics and Eugenics," Prof. H. H. Newman, University of Chicago Press.
According to this definition of "species" given by many scientists, the fertility of the offspring is proof that the parents were of the same species. Without change of species there can be no evolution — and without fertility there can be no descendants! Populations of different "kinds" (using the Bible word) will NOT interbreed — hence there are no offspring; and sometimes there are offspring of distinctly related "species" in which the offspring, like the mule, are sterile. The Creator has so made life that it interbreeds only in closely related species or genera; and as soon as interbreeding is attempted between more distantly related species or genera, the offspring is sterile and an impassable roadblock is put up so that it becomes impossible for one genus to transmute into another!
We now are ready to give a brief statement which is a key phrase that explains the operations and limitations of the divinely-given law of life, first revealed in Genesis 1. In nature we find endless variety within the species or genera; but absolutely NO CHANGE from one genus to another. Summed up, the laws governing all life prove there are:
"MUTATIONS" BUT NO "TRANSMUTATIONS" *
* Geneticists usually call this "macromutations."
by which we mean that there are many varieties within any group, but there can never be one "kind" of life (genus) mutating (changing) into another.
We now call attention to three fundamentally important facts:
(1) Practically all species exist in great variety. (2) The generally recognized phyla (major groups) of life are static; there is no evidence whatever of change from one phylum to another by evolutionary processes. (3) Practically all so-called "proofs" of evolution offered by evolutionists are merely "mutants," variants, minor changes within the same species.
Let us now examine evidence for these three facts:
(1) Practically all Species exist in great variety. Variety is the law of the Creator. In trees, no two leaves are exactly alike; in humans, no two fingerprints are identical; not even two snowflakes, out of the trillions that have fallen, are alike.
As we know, species are divided into sub-species, varieties, strains, races, breeds. In the dog species well over 100 distinct breeds of dogs are recognized — but who ever heard of a dog changing into another "kind" of animal? We see then many "horizontal" differences, but no "vertical" changes from one genus into another.
In fact "all animals and plants mutate," so scientific breeders can produce cattle without horns, white turkeys, seedless grapefruit, and many other varieties seemingly superior to the original stock, but all within the limits of the original "kind." *
page 7
*In nature too we find the development of "varieties," though the process is usually much slower than when man does it. Flies in this country have wings; but the only flies to be found on the storm-swept island of Kerguelen, in the southern Indian Ocean, creep around without wings, or little stubby vestiges of wings — but they are still flies. Scores of similar phenomena can be recounted — but such variants induced by environment always stay within the confines of their own "kind."
We should note also that man has been able to hasten, in some instances, the process of breeding new varieties of animals and developing new varieties of plants by artificially producing mutants through the use of radiation, heat or chemicals. Mutations in barley and corn have been produced by X-raying seeds. But all such mutations remain in the same genus as the seeds that were treated. Mutations are almost always harmful.
In every realm of life the story is the same. More than 20,000 new species of protozoa have been discovered with the aid of the compound optical microscope.
There are "80,000 species of snails" — and they are all snails!
Even in such obvious forms as the tiger, many variations occur in nature. It is large and long-haired in some sections; smaller and shorter-haired in India; and very small in Sumatra.
In mankind we see the same phenomena: one species, Homo sapiens, with many races: and with no two individuals — not even identical twins — exactly alike! One writer points out there are usually '46 chromosomes in each adult cell, and these (not counting the variations possible through the interchange of the many genes in each chromosome) make possible 17 million combinations of human characteristics!"
(2) There has never — there can never — be any change by evolutionary processes, from one "kind" (genus) to another.
In the countless billions of living organisms and dead fossils there has never been seen the slightest tendency to advance out of the confines of the original "kind" to which each organism belongs. On the contrary, there is found in every living creature the most stubborn determination not to evolve. This has been called "fixity of species" and is a commonly observed phenomenon. Here are a few of the many hundreds of competent scientists who bear witness to this fact.
Prof. Coultre, University of Chicago, said,
"The most fundamental objection to the theory of natural selection is that it cannot originate characters; it only selects among characters already existing." *
* This dictum is a truth of vast importance. "Natural selection" and "mutations" may slightly alter "characters" (organs; qualities) already existing, but they never introduce NEW "characters" — hence there are innumerable "mutations" and minor changes within the species, but there is no such thing as transformism from one genus to another.
Sir William Bateson, F. R. S., British naturalist who died in 1925, said, "We cannot see how the differentiation into species came about. 'Variations' of many kinds, often considerable, we witness, but no origin of species."
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), French "dictator of biology" in Napoleonic times, firmly maintained the doctrine of the fixity of species. Since his death, no facts have been discovered that in any wise militate against the fundamental principle he stood for. Incidentally, France, to this day, has NOT accepted the theory of evolution with the zest this country has.
page 8
In recent times, Dr. Austin H. Clark, F. R. G. S., said: "The greatest groups of animals in life do not merge into another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning. . . . No animals are known even from the earliest rocks, which cannot at once be assigned to their proper phylum or major group. . . . A backboned animal is always unmistakably a backboned animal, a star-fish is always a star-fish, and an insect is always an insect, no matter whether we find it as a fossil or catch it alive at the present day. . . . If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there were never such intermediates, . . . that these major groups, from the very first, bore the same relation to each other that they do at the present."
At a later date, when Dr. Clark (recognized as one of the world's greatest biologists) was biologist of the United States National Museum, he stated bluntly that Darwin, Lamarck and all their followers were wrong "on almost all vital points." "So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups, arose from any other. Each is a special animal-complex. . . .Appearing as a distinct creation."
Richard Goldschmidt, Ph.D., erstwhile Professor of Zoology, University of California, says, "Geographic variation as a model of species formation" will not stand under thorough scientific investigation. "Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof. . . .yet it has been universally accepted" (p. 211). "There may be wide diversification within the species. . . . but the gaps (between species) cannot be bridged. . . . Subspecies do not merge into the species either actually or ideally" (see pp. 138, 183, The Material Basis of Evolution; Yale University Press, 1940). He says, further, "Nowhere have the limits of (any) species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, which also includes sterility" (p. 168, Ibid).
Prof. T. H. Morgan said, "Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another." (p. 43. "Evolution and Adaptation;" McMillan, 1903).
Yves Delage, renowned biologist, said, "If one takes his stand on the exclusive ground of facts. . . . the formation of one species from another has not been demonstrated at all."
Darwin himself confessed, "Not one change of species into another is on record." "We cannot prove that a single species has been changed (into another)." (Vol. 1, p. 210; "My Life and Letters."
Without "transmutation" the theory of evolution is as devoid of proof as any other fairy tale.
(3) Practically all so-called "proofs" of "transmutation" (macromutations) offered by evolutionists are merely mutants, variants, minor changes within the sample species.
We have before us a half dozen articles in recent magazines that seek to offer "proof" of evolution; every one of them merely cites mutations made within the species. All such mutations are as commonplace as varieties of chickens and as meaningless. We quote from a few of them:
In the May, 1957 "Scientific American" is "A Study in the Evolution of Birds" by H. N. Southern. He calls attention to the fact that some guillemots have heads that are all black, and others, having white rings around their eyes, are called "bridled." He takes several pages to describe this phenomenon: "The frequency of the bridled character varied consistently with the latitude: at the southern end of the range, in Portugal, not a single speckled (bridled)
page 9
guillemot was seen, but northward the proportion of bridled birds increased fairly regularly until it reached more than 50% in Iceland. . . . It was obvious that in some way the bridled trait, or something associated with it, conferred a considerable advantage in the northern part of the range" (p. 130).
We all know that "variations" in birds are as commonplace as the different breeds of pigeons.
In another article in the "Scientific American" on "Evolution Observed," by Francis J. Ryan, he states that though "almost nowhere in nature can we see evolution in action . . . we are now beginning to realize that objective in the laboratory. . . . With bacteria as subjects we have actually been able to observe evolution in progress." *
* He explains that though a human generation is 20 years, for bacteria a generation is only 20 minutes, so in two years bacteria can grow through "more generations than man has in a million years."
After admitting that "although bacteria will mutate, they are really remarkably stable," he said that they "obtained successively fitter and fitter types through 7,000 generations." They developed strains resistant to penicillin when the environment contained penicillin and strains resistant to streptomycin when the environment contained streptomycin! Every doctor in the land knows that bacteria soon become penicillin resistant, when penicillin is used repeatedly, but they still remain the same genus of bacteria as they were before!
Actually, all they demonstrated is the well-known fact that bacteria as well as other forms of plant life will mutate under different environments. But after their experiments these scientists still had BACTERIA! Such mutations, produced in bacteria, whether by man, or by nature, are no more proof of evolution than to assume that because one can breed yellow dogs and black dogs he can from them eventually breed tigers.
Darwin himself was deceived by a similar phenomenon: variations in 14 species of finches, and other animals, on the Galapagos Islands. "He reached the conclusion that since variation in individual characteristics existed among the members of any species, selection of some individuals and elimination of others must be the key to organic change." (See "Charles Darwin," Scientific American; also "Darwin's Finches," Scientific American). Since Darwin's time it has been abundantly proven that mutations and variants are confined to their "kind" and do NOT lead to transmutation.
A few years ago Life magazine had a series of articles on "Evolution." They too sought to demonstrate "evolution" by examples of what they termed "evolution through isolation" and "evolution through adaptation," which were nothing more than natural mutations. They gave the example of "five species of birds of Paradise" found in different locations in New Guinea. These five species had minor variations of color — but all were birds of Paradise! In seeking to prove "evolution through adaptation" they gave as an illustration the gray and brown lizards that live in the White Sands Desert. They were different colors — but both were still lizards. Let us remember that the law of life is: MUTATIONS (varieties in the species), but no transmutation from one "kind" (genus) to another — hence, there is no evolution!
The evidence proves the Bible teaching to be correct: though there are many varieties in each species yet each genus persists in breeding "after its kind," stubbornly refusing to do otherwise.
Both "natural selection," and "chance mutation" have been ruled out as possible explanations of the so-called "evolutionary process." Charles H. Hapgood presents these facts:
page 10
"It is still widely supposed that the principle of NATURAL SELECTION explains the origin of new forms of life. The truth is, on the contrary, that the impossibility of explaining evolution through natural selection, without the assistance of some other factor, became obvious to geneticists about the year 1900. Statistical studies by J. B. S. Haldane and others showed that the amount of time that would be required for new traits to become established in a series by natural selection alone was so immense that even whole geological periods would not suffice to produce new species. As a way out of the difficulty it was suggested that mutations might account for more rapid changes in life forms. It soon became evident, however, that the very great majority of all mutations, since they are random, must be harmful and will be eliminated, in due course, by the process of natural selection itself. The net result of mutations, therefore, must be to SLOW DOWN, rather than to accelerate, the process of evolution. The time element is by no means the only problem left unsolved by evolutionary theory. . . . " (The Earth's Shifting Crust, by Charles H. Hapgood, Saturday Evening Post, 1-10-'59).
So modern science has eliminated both Charles Darwin's theory of evolutionary changes through "natural selection," and the more recent theory of comparatively rapid evolutionary advances through "mutations."
SURVIVAL OF THE UNFIT
John R. Howitt, M. D., London, England says: "I would like to point out that the theory of Evolution is accepted by faith alone, for three-quarters of the record is missing and the gaps in the remaining portion are unbridgeable. The modern concept of Neo-Darwinism is based upon the occurrence of mutations plus natural selection. But as mutations are almost invariably inferior to the original stock this would constitute the Survival of the Unfit, whether in the usual habitat of the species or in an unusual one. And selection could only select, and never initiate any new characteristics. Neo-Darwinism illustrated the almost unbelievable extent to which scientists have been forced to retire in order to maintain the hopeless, materialistic theory of Evolution. As Arthur N. Field has pointed out, evolution is based 'upon belief in the reality of the unseen: belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off.' " (Quoted in, Karl Marx as an Evolutionist).
Chapter 2
STRANGE CREATURES
That Witness Against Evolution
THIS IS A STRANGE WORLD, with many creatures in it that seem to come out of some unreal, imaginary land; in fact, some are so incredible that one would not accept them
page 11
as real did he not know they exist. It reminds one of the man who, seeing an elephant for the first time, said, "Why, there ain't no such animal!"
These strange creatures, who live on land and in the sea, are a most powerful witness for the Creator. Let us call up some of these "witnesses" and hear their intriguing story.
(1) The Portuguese "Man-of-war" (Physalis). We quote from a recent magazine article.
"The ruthless Physalia employs a lethal combination of ingenius tackle, murderous chemical warfare and a remarkable working partnership with a small fish, the Nomeus.
"The deadly sequence starts as this innocent-looking little Nomeus swims about, apparently aimlessly, in the vicinity of the man-of-war. A bigger fish, seeing this tempting and seemingly defenseless morsel, makes a grab for it. The Nomeus darts away with an unexpected burst of speed, straight toward a tangle of seaweed-like tentacles that hang down from the man-of-war. The larger fish plunges recklessly after it, into these harmless-looking streamers. In a fraction of a second he is paralyzed and the fiendish tentacles are drawing him in to be consumed by the hungry man-of-war.
"What happened to him as he plunged into the streamers is a process that astounds and mystifies scientists who consider it one of nature's deadliest mechanisms. The tentacles are studded with tiny pear-shaped capsules. Sheathed in each capsule is a compressed hair. The instant any creature touches one of the capsules, this hair shoots out like a harpoon, its sharp point penetrating the body of the victim. Through the hair flows a powerful acid which has the power to paralyze the creature into which it is thus injected. . . . So great is the force of the driven threads that they can easily puncture human skin. When they do, the victim may be doubled up in violent spasms and enter a state of shock.
"But why do these deadly hairs, which respond so instantly and savagely to the slightest touch by other creatures, let Nomeus go unscathed? Actually, the Nomeus can be harmed by the Physalia's sting. . . . But the Nomeus seems to be especially adapted for dogging the tentacles of the Physalia.
"When the man-of-war captures and eats a fish which the Nomeus has lured into his trap, the little decoy fish gets the scraps from the man-of-war's meal." (Coronet). *
* In the March, 1960 "Scientific American" is an article by Charles E. Lane on "The Portuguese Man-Of-War," giving these and other facts about this "Colorful jellyfish . . .whose stinging cells on the tentacles with which it fishes secrete a substance that is almost as toxic as Cobra venom."
Such highly technical equipment that is so involved, can not be duplicated by man, and such an ingenious stratagem of luring other fish to kill them for food could NOT be developed by mere chance. It is the work of a Master Mind who apparently delights to create numberless, insoluble mysteries in nature and distribute strange abilities to equally strange creatures — all the work of His Mind and Hand.
(2) Sea Cucumbers. Sea cucumbers are fleshly "echinoderms" that creep about on ocean floors. They have odd rows of "tube feet" by which they attach themselves to rocks.
Two most unusual means of self preservation granted to these humble creatures by the Creator are given here (reproduced from a scientific article).
"When attacked, some sea cucumbers throw out their viscera, leaving them for the enemy, meanwhile escaping and regenerating a new set. Others throw out slime threads which entangle the enemy. The animals creep about on the ocean floor by muscular movements of the body wall. The tube feet are little used. The animals swallow sand or mud and digest the organic material. . . . They are used in making a soup."
page 12
Not evolution, but God gifted the lowly sea cucumber with the ability to disgorge its insides — and then manufacture new ones at its leisure.
We would like to know, if evolution made this startling feat possible for the sea cucumber, why do not all other animals in the same category, and higher, have the same ability? Obviously, such miracles in nature are the work of a Supreme intelligent Creator.
(3) The Case of the Moving Left Eye
There are so many marvels in sea life that we will have to give a separate chapter to "Fish Wonders." However, we want now to tell of the miracle of the "moving eye." Let us take the "plaice" as an example — though any flat fish will do. We refer to the Pleuronectidae, i.e., fishes that swim on their sides.
"On emerging from the egg the young plaice, almost microscopic and quite transparent except for its black pinpoint of eyes, is an ordinary round fish with eyes in the position of those of other round fishes, swimming around like a round fish. But after a month a strange thing happens; the left eye begins to move. Meanwhile, the body slowly flattens sideways and the baby fish, a surface swimmer so far, begins to sink slowly towards the bottom. The left eye is still gradually moving, and by six weeks has reached the top of the head. A week later it has gone right around and has almost reached the right eye. By now the young plaice has sunk to the bottom and is lying on what was its left side, but which from now on will be its underpart — the white side — and the two eyes are close together on what is now the top of the head" (The Living Sea, pp. 153, 154).
With plaice, soles, dabs, flounders and halibuts it is always the left side that goes down and the left eye that moves; these are called "dextral fishes." But with other species (like the turbot and brill), called "sinistral fishes," the reverse flattening process takes place, and in these fishes it is the right eye that travels toward the left eye and away from the right side on which they lie.
No one knows WHY, but it is always the same eye in the same genus that does the travelling.
Moreover, many of these fish possess "homochromic mimicry" — the ability to change their color to suit their surroundings, as a protective measure — to an amazing degree.
They become the same color as their surroundings; and if the color of their surroundings is changed, the fish soon takes on that new color!
Evolution has no adequate explanation of this phenomenon. The truth is, this is one of those many cases in nature in which the new-born of the species has an entirely different environment from the adult form, and so God performed a miracle when He made these fish so that they could live both as round fish in infancy, near the surface, and as flat fish, in adult life, at the bottom of the sea. Common sense tells us, the only answer to such an unusual arrangement in nature is, God made it so.
Actually, there are myriads of STRANGE PLANTS and ANIMALS having characteristics that to the superficial observer seem to be "without rhyme or reason," that can not be accounted for by blind evolution, but show the handiwork of an intelligent Designer and Creator. We mention a few more of the innumerable oddities:
The "RAILROAD WORM" of South America has a red light on it's head and 11 pairs of greenish yellow lights on its sides, which make it look like a train. WHY this strange arrangement? The only possible answer is, God made it so!
The CHINA-MARK MOTH, exquisitely decorated, spends its entire caterpillar stage under water. This is so drastically contrary to usual experience that there can be no possible "evolutionary chain" leading up to it or departing therefrom. WHY does this creature have this strange life cycle? No one knows; but the answer is, God made it so!
page 13
An ALGERIAN LOCUST is able to use its own blood as a weapon. It can shoot, like an accomplished Texas gunman, literally "from the hip." There is a pore between the first and second joints at the base of the leg. This pore can be opened when danger threatens, and a blistering stream of locust blood ejected to a distance of 20 inches! Why do other locusts not have this strange power — if evolution did the job? Obviously, the creature was designed, made that way.
Not to be outdone, the BOMBARDIER BEETLE * squirts from its hind end a reddish acid fluid which explodes with a pop. As the 'shot' comes into contact with the air it dissolves into a cloud of bluish smoke which, hovering like a gas barrage, covers the beetle's retreat. The gas has irritant properties and generally succeeds in putting the enemy to "flight" (Nature Parade, p. 122). This is ingenuity so involved, using knowledge of engineering and chemistry so advanced, that man can not duplicate this miracle! It demands creation.
* There is another article on "The Bombardier Beetle" by Dr. Kofahi later in the book.
There is a species of BLIND TERMITES that shoot to kill. They have a bi-lobed gland on the head which contains a fluid that solidifies on being exposed to the air. Although this termite is blind, it possesses a mysterious sense of direction which enables it to fire its lethal syringe as accurately as if it could see. "This termite discharges his 'jet' right in the face of an invading ant — and the ants that receive the fatal douche run about as if demented, . . . and they usually die" (Sir J. Arthur Thompson). Certainly such uncanny ability can not be attributed to mere chance.
Let us give credit to whom credit is due: God designed and created all life in nature!
