Inspirational Readings for Your Daily Walk with God:

Christian Mediation

 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15


Why We Believe in Creation

not in Evolution

by Fred John Meldau

Chapter 12. 



THERE ARE A MILLION — and more — mysteries and miracles in nature that defy explanation.  No man apart from Divine Revelation can explain the origin of matter.  Neither can man explain the secrets of the atom, nor account for the origin of motion, or the miracle of sustained, controlled motion in this vast universe.

            We do not know what LIFE is, nor why or how a new unit of life can be started with the union of two small cells.  Neither do we know why plants and animals grow — nor why, when many of them reach a certain stage, they stop growing — nor why they grow old and eventually die.

              It is one of the ironies of modern science that the most elementary questions are still the hardest to answer.  How, for instance, is a new animal created?  We know that an egg and a spermatozoon unite to form a single cell, and this union somehow sets in motion a chain of events that gives rise to a new being.  But what trigger, what spark, starts the process?  What, in short, is the secret of fertilization?  We do not yet know, although many eminent biologists have searched many long years for the answer."  (Albert Monroy, in "Scientific American.").

              Scientists do not know how life got started in the beginning; the gap between the inorganic elements and the simplest forms of life is infinitely great.  No one knows why life is divided into the two major kingdoms: plant and animal.  Why not all one kingdom (say, animal); or, why not more then two — plant, animal and some other radically different form of life?  No one can explain the origin of sex; why male and female?  Nor can anyone explain the secrets of heredity, or of instinct, that amazing property of animals which acts like intelligence but is not intelligence as we know it, but which enables certain creatures to do what man with all his intelligence can not do!

            No person on earth can explain fully what electricity is, not gravitation, magnetism, light, heat, sound or color!  We know how these natural forces act — but WHY and exactly how they do so, no man knows.

              How are we to explain this phenomenon?  "One can send an electric current through a copper wire at 100  below zero, and at the other end of the wire heat a heating coil to thousands of degrees.  Where was the "heat" while going through the wire?  We all know there are "laws" governing heat and electricity that explain HOW these phenomena work — but who knows WHY they work that way?

              No one can explain the origin of chlorophyll, or the fascinating, involved process of photosynthesis.

              "Photosynthesis — the amazing process of the synthesis of organic compounds from carbon dioxide and water by plants in light remains one of the great unsolved problems of biology." (Eugene I. Rabinowitch,  "Scientific American," 11-'53).

              WHY does a comparatively minor change in the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an atom produce an entirely different element?  Essentially, all the atoms of all the elements are built on the same general plan: a central nucleus, made up of protons and neutrons, with an equal number of electrons revolving around them, with unbelievable speed.  WHY, by merely changing the number of the protons, neurons and electrons, does one get the different elements — so vastly unlike?  What magic legerdemain did the Creator use to accomplish such uncanny results?

            No one, save the Bible-believer, has a satisfactory explanation of the mysteries of sin (evil) and death in human experience.

            NO ONE YET HAS THOUGHT OF A SATISFACTORY THEORY FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH, IF GOD IS LEFT OUT OF THE PICTURE.  Every theory advanced so far has been riddled full of holes by FACTS that disprove the theories.  As an example of how "theories" have been made and blasted into bits, we quote from Fred Hoyle.

              "Nearly all of the planets LIE VERY FAR OUT (far away from the sun)."  This simple fact is "the death blow" of every theory that seeks for an origin of the planets in the sun; for, "how could the material have been flung out so far?" (See Fred Hoyle's argument, p.85, in "The Nature of the Universe").

`            Moreover, if all the planets were originally part of the sun, Why do some of the moons of some of the planets revolve in retrograde motion — in the opposite direction to the others?

            If the earth were originally thrown off the sun, which is 98% hydrogen, where did the water on the earth come from, and the oxygen to make water?  In a universe that is practically without water, why is there so much water on our earth?

            Millions of mysteries envelop our earth!  Who understands the mysteries of cosmic rays — and other forms of stellar radiation?

              "In cosmic radiation we are dealing with a universal phenomenon that is energetic, basic and mysterious"  (Shapely).

              Who can explain why, except by admitting an act of God, there is an "ozone belt" about forty miles up in the atmosphere, that filters out "killer rays" from the sun.  Without that ozone belt no life on earth would be possible.  WHO PUT IT UP THERE!

            The whole gamut of life on earth, from bacteria to man, is so involved, so interdependent, so filled with specialized organs that perform functions needed by the SOCIETY OF LIFE, as well as for their own benefit, that it presents one grand miracle of integrated achievement.  Life on earth in any organism is really a LIVING MACHINE, with a million parts, ALL necessary for the successful operation of the whole.  Bateson sensed this, though he professed to be an evolutionist.  We quote: 

            "To supply themselves with food, to find it, to seize and digest it, to protect themselves from predatory enemies whether by offence or defence, to counter-balance the changes of temperature, or pressure, to provide for mechanical strains, to obtain immunity from poison and from invading organisms, to bring the sexual elements into contact, to insure the distribution of type; all of these and many more are accomplished by organisms in a thousand most diverse and alternative methods.  These are the things that are hard to imagine as produced by any concatenation of natural events."  (Quoted from "Problems of Genetics," in "Evolution, the Unproven Hypothesis").

  Mysteries of the Microscopic World 

            Many people are familiar with the so-called plant carnivores — plants that trap and eat insects.  Of such are the pitcher plant, with its reservoir of digestive fluid to drown — then digest — hapless insect victims; and the sundew plant, with its flypaper-like leaves that trap insects; and the Venus flytrap, with its snapping jaws. 

            "There are MICROSCOPIC PLANTS in nature as unique and cleverly designed as any of these (pitcher plant, sundew plant, and the Venus flytrap).

            "These microscopic predators are fungi, or molds. . . .Some of them are equipped with traps and snares which are marvels of genetic resourcefulness.  HOW THEY EVOLVED THEIR PREDATORY HABITS AND ORGANS REMAINS AN EVOLUTIONARY MYSTERY." (Prof. Maio). 

            Yes, Prof. Maio, it is a very deep mystery to all evolutionists, and we can assure you, it will remain so — until they accept the fact of an all-wise, all-powerful Creator, then their problem will be solved, as it has for those of us who believe in Divine creation.            

Let us listen further to Prof. Maio, as he unfolds some of the marvels and mysteries of microscopic predators, so necessary in the "balance of nature."

                       "One of these molds is Arthrobotrys oligospora.  It develops networks of loops, fused together to form an elaborate nematode (a minute worm) trap.  An extremely sticky fluid secreted by the mold. . . .dooms the nematode.  In its frenzied struggles to escape the worm only becomes further entangled in the loops, and finally after a few hours exertion it weakens and dies.

            "Even more artfully contrived are the 'rabbit snares' employed by some molds.  They are rings, made of three cells, having an inside diameter JUST ABOUT EQUAL TO THE THICKNESS OF A NEMATODE (the victim).  When a nematode in the soil sticks its head into one of these rings, the three cells SUDDENLY INFLATE LIKE A PNEUMATIC TYRE, gripping the nematode in a stranglehold from which there is no escape.  The rings respond ALMOST INSTANTLY to the touch of a nematode; in less than one-tenth of a second the three cells expand to two or three times their former volume, obliterating the opening of the ring. . . .We are not yet sure what cellular mechanisms activate these deadly nooses.  If the nematode touches the outer surface of the ring, it will NOT trigger the mechanism, but if the worm passes inside the ring, its doom is certain." (Joseph J. Maio, Research Dep't., University of Washington; in an article, "Predatory Fungi," July, '58 "Scientific American"). 

            Remember — these clever snares, that work so quickly and with such precision, are MICROSCOPIC — so small they cannot be seen by the eye of man!  Scientists have not yet discovered the secret mechanism that triggers the snares, not the "steps" that led to the development of such an intricate system on so small a scale: BUT THERE IT IS: at work, all the time, in nature.  WHO DESIGNED THIS CLEVER, INVOLVED EQUIPMENT?  The brainless mold?  No one is thoughtless enough to suggest that.  Man had nothing to do with it; these molds were snaring nematodes long before man even knew about them.

            Why are there thousands of animals and plants — both microscopic and visible to the eye — that have unique characteristics, utterly unlike other animals or plants?

  The Mystery of the "Limitation of Hazards" 

            We present a phenomenon, not uncommon in nature, that might be termed the "limitation of hazards." 

            "Nature has a 'connectedness' that is sometimes astounding.  Kenneth D. Poeder (Tufts University) and Asher Treat (City College of New York) made the discovery that the high-pitched beeps that bats emit also act as a warning to moths on which bats prey."

            The investigators found that the moth's ear is beautifully adapted to hearing and locating high pitched sounds (the bat's cries are above the frequency range of the human ear and cannot b heard by man).  Nature, as it were, gives these moths "a fighting chance."

            "That is not all.  Nature's wheels within wheels go on without limit.  Treat found there is a parasitic mite which lives on this moth, that finds the moth's EAR especially nourishing.  But, IT NEVER EATS BOTH OF A MOTH'S EARS — only one!  If it deafened the moth, the moth would become easy prey for the bats, so the remarkably adapted parasite leaves the moth with some hearing for its own protection." (Condensed from an article in the Scientific American).

            Who restrains that tiny parasite and keeps it from destroying both of the moth's ears?  Does God care for the life of a moth?  He does!  The Creator has placed thousands of similar "hedges" around parts of His creation, lest the "balance of nature" be upset.  "He doeth all things well."  "Evolution" is mindless and meaningless and can not account for such marvels as the habits of a parasite that consistently protects moths.

The Miracle of Bioluminescence — "Cold light"

            In the flash of fireflies on a warm summer evening, in the greenish-white "phosphorescence" in the wake of an ocean-going vessel, in the glow of luminous bacteria on a piece of old meat, in the weird lights on the railroad worm and the cucujo beetle, one witnesses the miracle of bioluminescence — a "cold light" that man cannot duplicate.

              "Cucujo is a West Indies firefly having three luminous organs: one on the under side of the abdomen, and two on the rear of the first segment of the thorax.  It produces one of the brightest natural lights in the world." (Science Digest).  WHO DESIGNED THE CUCUJO?

              The miracle of luminescence is found at all levels of the ocean.  "Bioluminescence," comments H. M. Andrews (see, when Nature Lights Up), "is all around us, yet remains something of a scientific mystery."

  The Miracle of Instinct in the Amazing Hunting Wasp

              How can the Ammophila (Hunting Wasp) detect a caterpillar underground?  Who teaches the hunting wasp how and where to sting its prey (a caterpillar) to paralyze it, but not kill it?  In that way the hunting wasp provides fresh meat for its larvae.

            Professors can teach medical students how to paralyze the brain of a frog so that it can go on living and yet be insensible to pain when dissection is performed on it.  Skunks, to feed their young, catch and instinctively bite frogs and toads through the brain in such a way as to paralyze the animal but not kill it — thus preserving it as fresh meat to be used when needed!

  The Miracle of the Metamorphosis of a Caterpillar

              Inside the cocoon, "NOTHING REMAINS UNCHANGED: jaws, claws, claspers, pro-legs, digestive system, even the very shape — ALL disappears.  Yet if we were to watch patiently inside the horny case of the chrysalis of a butterfly (made of tough chitin), we would see something wonderful happen before our very eyes.  The shapes of the head, legs and the thorax gradually appear upon the chrysalis case. . . .the first rough draft of nature's work is dimly seen on the horny case of chitin.  (Presently) out of the husk comes a trembling. . . .creature.  The ugly grub has vanished: in its place is a lovely butterfly, as colorful as a flower."

              The encased caterpillar seems gradually to MELT INTO A JELLIED, SHAPELESS MASS; and before long, out of this blob of "melted caterpillar" comes a gorgeous butterfly, having large, dainty, colored wings, instead of the crawling, ugly caterpillar!

            It is a miracle — an unbelievable and inexplicable transformation — that can not be explained satisfactorily by evolution; no, not in a million years.  The miracle of the metamorphosis of the caterpillar into the butterfly demands a wonder-working GOD!

The Generation of Frogs is Another Unbelievable Wonder

            We have already discussed the miracle of the life cycle of bees.  Such a phenomenon is an incontrovertible proof of the fact of Creation — for "random mutations" could never evolve such an intricate system of generation.

            Consider the miracle of frog generation. 

            "A frog lays its eggs, yet no frog hatches, but something quite different; not a fish, yet in certain respects resembling one, for it has gills, and is entirely aquatic. Soon the tadpole begins to sprout legs, and in a matter of days it is a different creature!  Its gills disappear, and lungs and other organs are formed — and presently the tadpole is transformed into a frog!"  Its legs are perfected before leaving the water.  It then can go on log or land without having to "evolve" legs and lungs.

              So God bypasses "the millions of years" required by evolution, and produces every summer, by the millions, land animals (adult frogs), with lungs, from water animals (tadpoles) having gills.  But the strange thing is, year after year, this strange procedure goes on and on, and never changes, always working in the identical cycle that all of us are familiar with.  Only a work of GOD could do that! 

The Miracle of Instinct in the Humble Fiddler Crab

              It is a well-known fact among naturalists that the fiddler crab can foretell cyclonic storms.  But as yet, "we don't seem to have any inkling of the field or fields in which any mechanism they have for doing so functions," confesses one scientist.

            Fiddler crabs, which live in shallow, water-filled holes just above the normal tide level, WILL LEAVE THEIR HOLES SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE A HURRICANE STRIKES, and will travel inland;  and thus they escape the destruction that results when the sea rises and floods their holes and keeps them inundated for hours.  It is an inexplicable phenomenon, but it is factual.  Something seems to warm the fiddler crabs of the approach of a hurricane or a cyclone several hours before it strikes — and they get out of the danger zone!  DOES GOD CARE FOR THE FIDDLER CRAB?

  Miracles of "Regeneration" 

            Why can a salamander regrow an amputated limb, a lizard develop a new tail that has been bitten off, a crab regenerate a new claw that has been snapped off and a lobster grow a new eye?  Higher animals can do no such thing!

            Cut off a lobster's eye, and he will grow a new one — but not man!  When a dog or a cat loses a leg, it does not grow another.  When a man's finger is cut off, another does not grow on.  Certainly, the power to regenerate lost parts, such as a crab or a salamander has, is a distinct advantage; why did "evolution" withdraw this unique ability from higher forms of life — if, as it is claimed, evolution retains the qualities best suited to the "survival of the fittest?"

            This fact, so damaging to the theory of evolution, is observed in scores of realms.

            When, where, why and how did man lose the covering of fur, if he descended from the lower animals, all of which have a substantial covering?

            Why is it that a cow can digest the tough cellulose of plants like alfalfa, and man has not this ability?

            Why give replaceable teeth to fish and reptiles, but not to man?  Did evolution bungle things here?

            Why did not the high-pitched sonar system of bats pass on to higher animals and man?  It would seem to be of great value.

            Cockroaches and some water insects have auxiliary "booster hearts" to insure better circulation in their legs; why does not man have a similar "booster heart" to help keep his feet warm?

            Man does not have the "Wonder Net" — a special arrangement of blood vessels that some animals have to conserve heat.

            "A man standing barefoot in a tub of ice water would not survive very long.  But a wading bird may stand about in cold water all day, and the whale and the seal swim in the arctic with naked fins and flippers continually bathed in freezing water.  These are warm-blooded animals like man and have to maintain a steady body temperature.  How do they avoid losing their body heat through thinly insulated extremities?  The question brings to light a truly remarkable piece of biological engineering. . . .The principle is known as 'counter-current exchange'. . . . It is a method of heat exchange commonly used in industry. . . . In animals (such a system of heat exchange) is called 'rete mirabile.'  The blood in one vessel flows in the opposite direction to the adjacent vessel, and in that manner the warm stream passes its heat on to the cold stream."  (See article, "THE WONDER NET," by P. F. Scholander, in the April, '57 "Scientific American').

            MAN HAS "LOST" THE AMAZING "WONDER NET"  (rete mirabile) — an arrangement of blood vessels by which some animals can conserve heat and oxygen by applying the principle of "counter-current exchange."

            When it comes to the sense of smell, man is "found to be degenerate."  A dog can smell better than a man.

            Man has not the strength of the lion, the speed of a gazelle, the hide of the hippopotamus, the eye of the eagle for distant vision, the stomach of a cow — and a thousand other features in which the lower animals are man's superior.

            These HANDICAPS that are found in all higher forms of life, especially in man, "utterly demolish the theory of evolution."  Instead of the "survival of the fittest" in nature we see that the all-wise Creator made each type of life perfectly fitted to its environment and equipped it to perform its function in the overall economy of nature, as HE PLANNED IT.

            Instead of the instinct of the bee and the wasp, the bird and the eel, God has given man HANDS and a MIND with which to achieve and dominate his environment. Somewhere along the line, if evolution be true, evolution "pulled a thousand boners" and LOST for mankind many superior assets that animals enjoy but that are denied to man.  But GOD makes no mistakes — and HE created man as HE saw best and He created birds as HE saw best and He created fish and wasps and bees as HE saw best. 

The Miracle of Distinctiveness 

            Not only are the platypus and the pangolin, the railroad worm and the praying mantis, the sea horse and the sea mouse, extraordinarily odd creatures, but also there are scores of plants and animals that have DISTINCTIVE FEATURES that are both mysterious and unaccountable.

            The COLLAR-FLAGELLATES — protozoa — have a "delicate transparent protoplasmic collar from the center of which emerges a single flagellum.  . . . These collar-flagellates are of special interest because a similar type of cell occurs nowhere else in the animal kingdom, except in the sponges."  (Animals Without Backbones).  It is hard to see what the odd collar-flagellates "evolved" from.

            In the open ocean is a transparent, slender animal (from one two three inches long) that looks like a cellophane arrow.  These "arrow worms" are members of the phylum, Chaetognatha.  These strange arrow worms are hermaphroditic: that is, both male and female sex cells arise from the lining of the coelom. 

            "Their body plan is SO DIFFERENT from that of other groups that it is difficult to say what relationships they have to other invertebrates."  (Animals Without Backbones). 

            If evolution be true, from what did this weird creature descend? 


            There are animals, like the striped tiger and spotted leopard, whose coloring gives concealment by matching the background of their environment.  The leopard frog, which lives in the moist grass along the edge of ponds, not only wears a green coat to blend with the grass, but also has many irregular blotches of brown on his back which perfectly simulate the small spots of shadow among the green grass!  Horned "toads" have a color so much like the desert sand in our southwest that the little animals so blend with their surroundings that it is hard to see them.  The arctic fox and the polar bear have white coats that can scarcely be seen against the snow.  The snowshoe rabbit and the ptarmigan have three suits — a brown suit for summer, white for the snow of winter, and for autumn and spring they have a brown-and-white mottled ensemble.

            "Impersonation of other living creatures represents a subtler form of masquerade than imitation of a leaf or flower. . . . Moths masquerade variously as a spider, a weevil, a beetle and a scorpion. . . . Transcending mimicry, some insects have evolved features dramatically designed to inspire fear, like the EYE SPOTS of the Headlamp Click Beetle, whose pseudo eyes are luminous at night. . . The ultimate in horror defense is worn by the Lantern Bug.  At rest, it is inconspicuous; in flight it exposes huge eye marks on its hind wings and a hideous head — as a huge mask bearing the likeness of a tiny alligator complete with ravening teeth.  As a final defense, its body is coated with distasteful wax."  (Life Magazine).  Who can believe that evolution produced this miracle? 

            The miracle of protective coloring and camouflage is hard for "evolution" to explain.

            "If we accept the idea of protective coloration, IT IS NOT EASY TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCESSES OF EVOLUTION COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE EXQUISITELY PRECISE PATTERNS OF MIMICRY THAT SOME OF THESE ANIMALS DISPLAY. . . .We have overwhelming evidence that the protective colors and markings of animals cannot be mere accidents.  An enormous number of animal forms have (such protective) patterns." ("Defense by Color," by N. Tinbergen, in the Oct., '57, "Scientific American"). 

            There is mimicry in plants as well as animals.  "There are plants in South Africa which look like pebbles, while others are colored to resemble the earth."

            Mimicry is widespread in the insect world.  The dead-leaf butterfly folds its brilliantly-colored wings and is invisible among the dry leaves!  Did this butterfly create its own camouflage?  Or, did the Great Designer so gift this humble creature?

            The owl's-head butterfly of South America has "eyes" on its wings almost exactly the size, shape, and color of the true eyes of a small owl!  Small insect-eating birds are afraid of owls, so the value of these markings to the insect is obvious.  Whoever heard of "chance" mutations ending up with a realistic design like that?

            The walking-leaf insect of Asia shows a remarkable resemblance to a green leaf.  How can one explain such a phenomenon, save by admitting creation by a Master Intelligence?  Not only are living leaves imitated but dead ones also.  The dead-leaf butterfly of the East Indies looks remarkably like a dead leaf!  How are we to account for that?

            The brown walking-stick insect is shaped so much like a stick that it is difficult to see it on the trees where it feeds!

            Fish, too, seem well versed in the art of camouflage.  Some butterfly fish have faked eyespots on there rear sides; they swim backwards, so that if they are attacked they can dart rapidly in the direction least expected by the enemy!

            Some of the arts of camouflage seem to be unusually clever.

            The leaf fish, about four inches long, is shaped like an elm leaf.  His head is like the bottom part of a leaf, and he even has a stringy part hanging from his bottom lip to represent the stalk of the leaf.

            There are a thousand more illustrations of "camouflage" and protective "coloring" in the sea — and ten thousand more among insects of the world — that give evidence of the fact that a Supreme Creator so designed ALL LIFE that each kind has either the advantages or the handicaps it needs to make a well-balanced economy in nature.

The Marvel of Hibernation

            Why the spermophile (a ground squirrel) and the woodchuck — and some other mammals — spend the winter in "an extraordinarily deep sleep, which in some cases appears to be only slightly removed from death," is a mystery.

            Mammalian hibernation has been the subject of sporadic research for at least 100 years, yet "the fundamental causes of the condition are still a mystery." 

Myriads of other Mysteries and Miracles 

            As we have said before, nature is full of marvels and wonders, miracles and mysteries that no man can fully understand or account for.

            How can one account for the "Death March of the Lemmings" — short-tailed relatives of meadow mice — that live on the bare tops of mountains in northern Europe or on the Arctic tundra.  Every so often the number of lemmings grows far beyond the supply of food in their native haunts — so they start their "death march" to the sea.  Hordes of them will swim across rivers, travel across plains, and over mountains, until they reach the sea — and then plunge into the sea and swim out with all their might, until they drown from sheer exhaustion.  WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION OF THIS STRANGE PHENOMENON?

            We have called attention before to the miracles of migration.  We know that salmon travel from mountain streams where they are hatched, down to the sea, and far out into the sea; then, when they are grown and have lived most of their lives, they go back to the home of their infancy, lay eggs — and die.  WHY DOES THE EEL ACT IN JUST THE OPPOSITE WAY?  Eels are born in the salt water of the Sargasso Sea in the Atlantic.  They then go through thousands of miles of the trackless depths of the Atlantic ocean, until they finally emigrate to the rivers of Europe, where they live in fresh water from five to twenty years!  WHY?  No one knows why except the Creator who made them so.

            For over 200 years botanists have been puzzling over the problem of how water rises from the roots to, say, the highest branches of a 400-foot fir tree.

            "Even today we do not know the complete story of how it does this (for) merely to raise water 450 feet requires a pressure or tension of about 210 pounds per square inch!  And in some hardwood trees water rises at the rate of almost 150 feet per hour.  A date palm in a desert oasis may need to raise as much as 100 gallons of water a day to make up its losses from evaporation from the leaves." (Victor A. Grenlach, in "The Rise of Water in Plants," Scientific American Magazine). 

            No one knows why there is a sudden and mysterious increase in the mouse population about every four years.  So astonishingly large is this increase that some scientists say the mouse population "explodes". . . . Usually some kind of mouse sickness slows down this strange increase — and presently the summer fields are once again peaceful, with just enough meadow mice to feed their natural enemies.

            Naturalists and travelers have observed the same species of plants in widely separate areas.  Rutherford Platt and Francis Smythe both reported the existence of a peculiar type of saxifrage in widely separated and remote areas of the world.  Rutherford Platt comments on this mystery.

              "How does one account for the existence of precisely the same peculiar plant at two points thousands of miles apart, separated by oceans and continents?" (Scientific American). 

            Bible believers have an answer: the seed may have been scattered at the time of the flood!

            No scientist can explain the amazing engineering accomplishments of the prairie dog.  The rodents "plunge hole" is a vertical chimney as much as 16 feet deep! 

            "Apparently well-counselled by instinct, the prairie dog also builds a 'flood-control dam' around his burrow entrance.  Inattention to this flood-control work might be costly since midsummer cloudbursts can create lakes two to three inches deep."

            And so the story goes — one miracle after another, one mystery added to another.  It would take volumes to write the whole account, and then the half would not have been told, for man does not as yet know all the mysteries and miracles of creation, much less understand or explain them.


            Let us now turn our attention to the subject of MISSING LINKS 

            The public has been mislead into thinking there are a "few" missing links in the chain of evolutionary descent.  Far from being almost complete, the so-called chain of evolution is broken by millions of "missing links."  It would be more appropriate to speak of "missing chains."  Note some of these "missing links:" 

Between Empty Space and the Creation of Matter 

            Since the advent of the atomic age, we know that matter is NOT eternal; matter is a form of energy; it had a beginning and may be destroyed.  Sir Ambrose Fleming once said,

            "Between space, absolutely empty space, and space filled with even the most rarified matter there is a GULF which no theory of evolution has been able to pass or explain."

            "Nothing" can not create matter; therefore we know that the eternal and uncreated God made matter "in the beginning" as the first verse of Genesis says. 

The Origin of Motion

              Between the creation of matter and the beginning of MOTION is another "gulf" that cannot be bridged except by admitting GOD — for it takes POWER to put inert matter into motion.  WHERE DID THAT POWER COME FROM, if not from the eternal One?  No theory of evolution we ever have heard about even attempts to explain the origin of both matter and motion — without admitting an Original Cause: God.

The Origin of Life

            Sir Ambrose Fleming, in an address to the members of the Victoria Institute, not only spoke of the origin of matter, but also of the origin of life. 

            "We (as scientists) have not the smallest knowledge of how empty space first became occupied with the most rudimentary form of matter.  Neither have we any conception of how life originated.  WE CANNOT IN ANY WAY BRING IT INTO EXISTENCE APART FROM PREVIOUS LIFE. . . . ." 

            Irwin Schroedinger, "Nobel laureate in Physics," and leading atomic scientist, says,

            "Where are we when presented with the mystery of life?  We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped.  . . .We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."  (Quoted in the New York Times, in "The Greatest Mystery of All — The Secret of Life," by Waldemar Kaempffert). 


            In 1898 the International Congress of Zoology organised an International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to establish rules of the Scientific naming of animals; and these rules have been adopted throughout the world.  Linnaeus' "System of Nature" (1758) was taken as a basis for scientific classification.  In our modern system of classification we start with TWO KINGDOMS: the Plant and the Animal.  The Plant Kingdom is divided into DIVISIONS, while the Animal Kingdom is divided into PHYLA.  Each Division and Phylum is divided into CLASSES.  Each class is divided into ORDERS.  Each order is divided into GENERA.  Each genus is divided into SPECIES.  Each species is divided into "breeds," "varieties." or "races."

            Science has divided the animal kingdom into 14 or more PHYLA; likewise, the plant kingdom is separated into several DIVISIONS.

            The animal kingdom starts with Phylum PROTOZOA and ends with Phylum CHORDATA.

            Having given a little sketch of what scientists mean by the terms "kingdom," "phylum," "family," "genus," "species," etc., we are ready to prove from their own writings that ALL THE PHYLA ARE SEPARATED BY "MISSING LINKS." We quote. 

            "If we could find an animal clearly intermediate in structure between two modern phyla, we would have good evidence that the two phyla are closely related.  . . . Such an animal has never been found. . ." . . ."We have fossil records to show that certain species have remained unchanged for very long periods of time, but none are so old that they trace back to the time before all of the modern phyla evolved.  Therefore we often speak of these MISSING ANCESTRAL FORMS as 'missing links'," (P.235, Animals Without Backbones). 

            There we have the frank confession that the LINKS between the Phyla are ALL MISSING!

            Lacking positive evidence, evolutionists IMAGINE what the "missing links" were! Note well this language that suggests GUESSWORK, THEORY AND IMAGINATION:

            "It is HIGHLY PROBABLE that the capacity for photosynthesis was a characteristic of the ancestors of primitive organisms.  FROM A HYPOTHETICAL (imaginary) ancestral type of 'plant-animal,' THE EXACT NATURE OF WHICH IS UNKNOWN, came at least two main lines of descent, the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom." (P.338, Ibid).

            "Considering the remoteness of the events with which we are dealing, and the INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, it is clear that any 'invertebrate tree' (showing their concept of the steps in evolution) MUST BE CONSIDERED HIGHLY SPECULATIVE." ( pages 337, 338, Ibid). 


            "The most primitive animals are single-cells. . . .The exact manner in which multicellularity

( animals having many cells) arose CANNOT NOW BE DETERMINED." (p. 338, Ibid).  "The stage beyond the first multicellular organisms which led to the higher phyla CAN ONLY BE IMAGINED." (Ibid).

            "By the passage of some of the cells from the surface into the interior, a two-layered animal was formed.  This HYPOTHETICAL (imaginary) two-layered ancestor PROBABLY evolved from a different group of protozoa than that which gave rise to sponges.   . . . Just what it looked like WE DO NOT KNOW. . . " (P. 339). (Caps ours).

            "It is NOT KNOWN just hoe the radical gastrula-like ancestor became bilateral. . . " (P. 340, Ibid).  (Caps ours).

            Read again the above-quoted paragraphs (from "Animals Without Backbones") and see that all the evolutionists have to base their theory on is IMAGINATION.  They have absolutely NO PROOF of any evolutionary process or steps between the phyla.

            Let us now take a closer look at some of the radical DIFFERENCES in body structure that exist in animals in different phyla.  The ARTHROPODA are "joint-legged" animals.  A rigid cuticle furnishes a supporting framework for the tissues within, and provides a surface for the attachment of muscles.  Such a supporting structure, as is found in spiders, beetles, ants, etc., is called an exoskeleton.  In other words, the insect's skeleton that supports it is ON THE OUTSIDE OF ITS BODY.  In sharp contrast to this type of framework is the endoskeleton of vertebrates — animals with backbones — which lies on the INSIDE and is surrounded by the soft fleshy parts.

            Now here is our question: by what possible route could an animal with its skeleton on the OUTSIDE, like a beetle, be transformed into an animal with its skeleton on the INSIDE, like a dog or cat?  The method of construction is so vastly different, a step-by-step connecting route is out of the question.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE IN NATURE TODAY OR IN THE FOSSIL WORLD OF YESTERDAY OF ANY SUCH GRADUAL CONNECTING STEPS, except in the imagination of evolutionists — and they cannot even IMAGINE the steps!

            Another contrast: Insects HAVE NO LUNGS.  An insect gets air through little tubes called tracheae, which branch through the whole body.  There are sacs at the ends of the tracheae which can be filled with air; the air in these sacs make the body very light and buoyant, making it easier to fly.  Vertebrates have LUNGS that are localized, and do NOT extend throughout the entire body.  These breathing organs are so radically different, it is impossible to conceive of connecting links or any relationship between these vastly divergent phyla.  To show how different the breathing apparatus of an insect is, let us quote: 

            "Flying insects require more oxygen, ounce for ounce, than larger animals do.  Insect evolution has met this demand by designing a respiratory system totally different from that of higher animals.  Our 'rhythmic sipping of the air' supplies oxygen to our body cells by the roundabout route of lungs and bloodstream.  The insect respiratory system by-passes the blood and delivers oxygen directly to each and every one of the millions of cells buried deep in the various tissues and organs of its body.  Each insect cell, in short, has its own private lung to keep the fire of its metabolism burning. . . .The tracheal system embodies a refinement of biological engineering almost past belief." (See, "Insect Breathing." By Carroll M. Williams in the "Scientific American").

            The words "biological engineering" suggest a precise science in the realm of biology.  The Creator indeed is The Master "Biological Engineer."

            How could this amazing system of breathing, so marvelously designed and executed as "to be almost past belief" in its ingenuity and practicability, be the work of "random mutations?"

            No involved invention of man — such as the telephone, TV, or radio — has ever happened of itself by mere "chance," but has ALWAYS been the result of thought, design and persistent effort.  "CHANCE" never produced anything of an involved character that works with precision.  Any involved mechanism, whether found in nature or in man's world of invention, HAD TO BE THOUGHT OUT AND MADE BY ADEQUATE INTELLIGENCE.

            It is easy to see that the two systems of getting oxygen are so utterly different that it is a case of using one or the other.  Not that any reputable evolutionist even suggests that the breathing apparatus of insects evolved into the lungs of the Chordata

(vertebrates).  It is obvious to all such an "evolution" — from tracheae to lungs — is utterly impossible.  This shows, however, how wide is the chasm between the different phyla, and there are absolutely no intermediary links to span the chasm.  How complete is the evidence against the imaginary theory of evolution.

            There are scores of similar RADICAL DIFFERENCES between the phyla that prevent any step-by-step development.

            What possible connection — or missing links — could there be between the scales of a reptile and the feathers of a bird?  Scales are scales and feathers are feathers, and never the two shall merge!  Scientists admit that "pro-avis" exists only in the imagination of evolutionists. 

            "So far the luck which paleontologists unfortunately need has failed to produce a specimen of 'pro-avis,' the name used by Heilman for the 'feathered reptile' (more or less what Professor Wagner thought Archaeopterx to be) that preceded Archaeornis.  Nor have we found a form between Archaeornis and the modern birds."  (See "Salamander's and Other Wonders," by Wally Ley, p. 141. Published by Viking Press, 1955, New York). 


            To believe that the one (birds) descended from the other (reptiles) is pure imagination.  In any event, THERE IS NO PROOF FOR THIS FANTASTIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

            The extreme difficulty in creating a "family tree" and seeking to make a step-by-step arrangement of the descent of one animal from another is seen in the evolutionists' crude attempts.  We are told that "the bat probably evolved from the mouse."  Supposedly, the mouse's feet started webbing.  WHAT GOOD ON EARTH ARE WEBBED FEET TO A MOUSE?  Eventually, a monstrous creature was supposed to have evolved that was half-mouse and half-bat — a crazy creature that could not swim, walk, run or fly!  What a freak it would be!  While there are all sorts of bats on exhibit in our museum, and many kinds of mice, there ARE NO "LINKS" BETWEEN MICE AND BATS. 

            "One of the great problems of evolution," wrote Jacques Millot, in the Scientific American, "has been to find anatomical links between the fishes and their land-invading descendants. . . .Comparative anatomists have speculated for half a century on how the fin of a fish evolved into the forelimb of the frog."

            Think of it!  Thousands of biologists have scratched their heads — as well as the soil — for the past fifty years in a vain effort to come up with plausible "LINKS" between fins and forelimbs — and they are nearly as diverse as scales and feathers!  The fact is, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO MAKE A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN FINS AND FORELIMBS without doing violence to all laws of anatomy and all rules of reason.  AND NOWHERE WILL ONE FIND ANY "MISSING  LINKS" BETWEEN "FINS" AND "FORELIMBS."

            A noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, Dr. Austin H. Clark, said of this:  "THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS MISSING LINKS.  Missing links are misinterpretations."  And Professor Virchow said in his day, "The ape-man has no existence and the missing link remains a phantom."

            Darwin himself was keenly disappointed in not being able to find the MISSING LINKS his theory demanded.  He wrote:

            "I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological section, had not the absence of innumerable transitional forms between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation pressed so hardly on my theory."

            Fairhurst produced a sound argument when he wrote,

            "It will surely be admitted that conditions favorable to the preservation of species are equally favorable to the preservation of transitional forms.

            And La Conte commented, "The transitional forms ought not to consist of species at all, but simply of individual forms shading insensibly into each other, like the colors of the spectrum; but THIS IS NOT THE FACT."

            THE "MISSING LINKS" ARE STILL "MISSING" — because they are non-existent.  They exist only in the imagination of the evolutionists.

            The fact that great, vast gulfs exist between all phyla and between all classes and orders of all phyla, and between all families and all genera and many species is proof that EACH "KIND" IN THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF CREATION WAS THE DISTINCTIVE WORK OF THE MASTER ARTISAN WHO GAVE TO EACH "KIND" ITS OWN PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFECTLY ADAPTED IT TO ITS OWN ENVIRONMENT AND ITS OWN SPHERE AND NICHE IN THE ECONOMY OF LIFE ON EARTH.           

            There is a difficulty in the path of evolution afforded by SIZE.  Robert E. D. Clark, Ph. D. (teacher of chemistry, Cambridge Technical College), calls attention to it.              

            "Even more basic is the difficulty afforded by size.  It is a principle in engineering that one cannot, simply, imitate a small machine on a much larger scale.  There comes a time when mere modification will not do; a basic redesign is called for.  This fact arises from the consideration that weight increases as the cube of dimensions, but surface area and forces, which can be transmitted by wires, tendons, or muscles, vary only as the square.  For this reason a fly the size of a dog would break its legs and a dog the size of a fly would be unable to maintain its body heat.  So if evolution started with very small organisms there would come a time when, as a result of size increase, small naturally-selected modifications would no longer prove useful.  Radically new designs would be necessary for survival.  But by its very nature, natural selection could not provide for such redesign.

            "From this and much more besides, it becomes increasingly clear that it would be easier to show by science that evolution is impossible than to explain how it happened."  (Christianity Today, issue of 5-11-59.). 


            "Cuvier's Law" is expressed in these words:  "Every organ forms a whole — a complete system — all parts of which mutually correspond.  None of these parts can change without the others changing also."  To illustrate: The sharp tooth of a lion requires a strong jaw, a skull fitted for the attachment of powerful muscles, both for moving the jaw and well-developed shoulderblade; an arrangement of the bones of the leg which admits of the leg being rotated and turned  upward, as a seizing and tearing instrument, and a paw armed with strong claws.

            Here is the point: for "evolution" to change an animal's tooth, for example, would require that simultaneously the entire co-ordinating mechanism must also be changed to conform to the "evolved" tooth.  Obviously, the requirements for successful "evolution' are far more intricate and involved than the theory seems to allow for.

                In His creative work, the Supreme Architect perfectly designed all co-ordinating parts to work as a perfectly engineered unit.