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 14. 


            Prof. Thomas Huxley, one of the greatest exponents of evolution of all time, said frankly, "Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible."  Many present day geologists have accepted the theory of evolution, and so to them "the Creation, Fall and Flood" are mythological.  Basing everything on the theory of evolution, these geologists have closed their minds, and refuse even to consider the staggering amount of evidence that refutes the theory of evolution.  One geologist says,

            "Everything contrary to geological Uniformity is impossible, therefore no amount of evidence can ever prove any past world conditions which would be contrary to Uniformity." * (or Continuity).

            * "Uniformitarianism" in geology has been defined as "the doctrine that all things and all forces continue as they were from the beginning" — and this of course rules out sudden catastrophic changes in the earth's surface due to the tremendous upheavals of such cataclysmic events as implied in Genesis 1:2 and described in Genesis 6 — 8, the Flood. 

            So he plainly denies the catastrophic changes that took place during the primeval judgment on the earth indicated in Genesis 1:2, Genesis 3 (the Fall of Man, and consequent judgment on the earth), and Genesis 6 — 8 (the universal Flood).  Much that seems impossible to the believer in Uniformitarianism is perfectly clear and logical to the Bible believer who accepts the historical facts of TWO OR MORE OVERWHELMING DELUGES in the history of the earth.  But the fact is, neither the geological strata nor fossils are found in the orderly CONTINUITY the evolutionist desires.

            "There is not a single spot on earth where the whole series of the different strata appears; no cases where more then three, or, at most four ages are found one on top of another and these three or four ages may be any three or four of the numerous ages that are said to exist.  Though the bottom, or earliest age, is, as would be expected, at the bottom, those ages above are not always in the same genealogical order."

            Even Sir Charles Lyell (an evolutionist) admitted,  "Violations of continuity are so common as to constitute even in districts of considerable area, the rule rather than the exception."  (The Case For Creation, pages 37, 38).

            "many geologists, compelled by facts that have been accumulating for a century, are now doubting whether fossil remains can be graded in a life-succession at all.  'In the present condition of our knowledge,' admitted Prof. Huxley, 'one verdict — NOT PROVEN AND NOT PROVABLE — must be recorded against all grand hypotheses of the paleontologist respecting the general succession of life on the globe.'

            In the last few years there has arisen a considerable weight of scientific opinion that "has challenged the fundamental principle of the system established by the nineteenth-century geologist, Charles Lyell.  He supposed that geological processes of the past always proceeded at their present rates: processes such as rainfall, snowfall, erosion and the deposition of sediment.  However, in 1955, Leland Horburg (geologist) showed that unless the radiocarbon method was entirely fallacious, there was a very marked acceleration of the rate of these geological processes during the last part of the ice age.  Some factor must, therefore, have been operating that is not operating now. . . .By use of 'Carbon 14' dating (using the radioactive isotope of carbon) . . . scientists revised the date of the end of the last ice age, making it only 10,000 years ago, instead of 30,000 years . . . .The importance of all these problems compel us to admit that we do not have an integrated, effective theory of the earth we live on. . . .(In the last 100 years) at least fifty theories have been produced to explain the 'ice ages' but none of them has been satisfactory."  (Charles H. Hapgood, "The Earth's Shifting Crust," in Jan. 10, '59, the Saturday Evening Post). 

FOSSILS — A Witness for Creation 

            "Any evidence in the materials or (sedimentary) rocks of the earth's crust that gives some idea of the size, shape, or structure of the whole or any part of a plant or animal that once lived is called a fossil.  Fossils can be formed (or preserved) in a variety of ways. . . .Most fossils are formed. . .when the skeletal structures are slowly dissolved by water and are gradually replaced by minerals such as calcite, silicone dioxide, or iron sulphide, which are deposited in the cavities left by the slow dissolution of original materials."  (Records from the Invertebrate Past, pages 231, 322, in "Animals Without Backbones").

            "GEOLOGICAL TIME" has been divided into six eras:  (1)  Azoic ("no life") era marks the origin of the earth and the formation of rocks; no life was present; (about 3 billion years ago).  (2)  Archeozoic ("primitive life") era.  "If life had evolved, the rocks show little evidence of it."  (2 billion years ago).  (3)  Proterozoic ("first life") era.  (1,200,000,000 years ago).  "Rocks of this era have only rarely yielded a recognizable fossil; yet the era must certainly have been a time of great evolutionary development, for by the Cambrian period (first of the Paleozoic eras), the animal kingdom is already highly diversified.:  (4)  Paleozoic ("ancient life") era (550 million years ago).  (5)  Mesozoic ("middle life") era (200 million years ago).  (6)  Cenozoic ("recent life") era (60 million years ago).  (See Croneis and Krumbein, Down to Earth).

            According to the evolutionary theory, primitive life should have "evolved" in the Archeozoic era and shown rapid and widespread development in the Proterozoic era.  But all geologists note this strange phenomenon:  THERE IS LITTLE FOSSIL RECORD BEFORE THE CAMBRIAN PERIOD (first of the Paleozoic era) — long after the fossil record SHOULD have appeared, if evolution be correct! 

            "Nearly all Phyla which leave any kind of a fossil record are well represented in Cambrian rocks — many of them by several groups, which already show the distinctive characters of modern classes.  WHY PRE-CAMBRIAN FOSSILS ARE SO RARE IS NOT YET UNDERSTOOD."  (Animals Without Backbones, pages 324, 325).

            The fact that there are few if any pre-Cambrian fossils is fatal to the theory of evolution, as the following quotations show.  Evolutionists explain this lack of pre-Cambrian fossils by saying, "The records have been obliterated." *  The only proof they have for this assertion is, "Since evolution must be true — 'for there is no alternative' — therefore we know that the earlier living forms must have existed!"  (Evolution, the Unproven Hypothesis).  The inference from the fact that there are almost no pre-Cambrian fossils is, life began on earth suddenly and in great variety.  All thinkers should be able to see this, except those who have been brainwashed by the evolutionary hypothesis.

            * "In passing from the Permian to the Mesozoic, we are conscious of entering a new world in the succession of life. . . .A WHOLE VOLUME OF RECORDS IS MISSING.  When we next gather up the threads of the story we find that the organic world had made extraordinary advances during the age of which we have no available records,"  (Prof., Howchin. See page 89, "Creation's Amazing Architect").

            To help us realize the full force of the fossil evidence, let us present this summary (based on a similar summary in "Creation's Amazing Architect," pages 49, 50.)

            1.  "The era of ancient life arrived abruptly and without warning" (Wells and Huxley).  "The fossils, instead of appearing slowly and sporadically, suddenly appear in their thousands in the Cambrian strata, whereas in the pre-Cambrian strata the fossils cited are very few, very far from being intermediates, and they all have been disputed.  It has also been demonstrated that these alleged pre-Cambrian remains may well have been produced by inorganic means."

            2.  "Every species that ever occupied the earth throughout the vast reaches of geological time, when it appears in the record of the rocks (as a fossil) for the first time, appears complete and fully organized.  There is no evidence in the history of the rocks that any 'half and half' form ever existed."

            3.  The life that lived in the waters of the Cambrian period was "highly organized and differentiated" (Howchin). . . "diversified and not as simple as the evolutionist would hope to find it" (Percy Raymond).  "They have not the simplicity of structure that would naturally be looked for (if evolution is correct)" (Dana).  "They are perfect of their kind, and highly specialized structures" (Dana).

            4.  The fauna of the Cambrian is "in essentially the same form as that in which we now know it" (Clark).  "The majority of the fundamental types of the animal kingdom come before us without any links between them from a paleontological point of view" (Deperet). 

            Darwin himself admitted the failure of geology to support his views.  He freely admitted that "all but one of the greatest geologists and paleontologists of his day were against him."  (See end of chapter 9, "Origin of the Species"). 

            "Geology," said the disappointed Darwin, "assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

            Many modern scientists (some of them evolutionists) admit the failure of fossils to support the theory of evolution.

            "LACKING THE MORE CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF A FOSSIL RECORD, and basing our ideas on the principles of homology and recapitulation, we are able to construct animal trees. . . .which attempt to show the order of evolution. . . ."  "The fossil record . . . IS OF PRACTICALLY NO USE IN RELATING THE PHYLA TO EACH OTHER.  For, as we dig deeper and deeper into the rocks, expecting to find a level at which the most recently evolved phyla no longer appear, WE FIND INSTEAD THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD IS OBLITERATED."  ("Animals Without Backbones," page 335, etc;  caps ours).

            Lacking FACTS, they used their imagination to develop their theories.

            Douglas Dewar, British naturalist, at one time a believer in evolution, turned from it as the result of his own scientific research.  He said,

            "Paleontology (study of fossils) cannot be regarded other than as a hostile witness (against evolution).  "It is not possible to draw up a pedigree showing the descent of any species, living or extinct, from an ancestor belonging to a different order.  The earliest know fossils of each class and order are not half-made or half-developed forms, but exhibit, fully developed, all the essential characteristics of their class or order. . . .It is not possible to arrange a genealogical series of fossils proving that any series has in the past undergone sufficient change to transform it into a member of another family.

            All the changes proved by fossils to have taken place in animals are within the limits of the family."

            In the book "IS EVOLUTION PROVED?" Douglas Dewar quoted Sir J. William Dawson, F. R. S., of McGill University (Montreal), a trained geologist.  Prof., Dawson said in his day:

            "The evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. . . .that in our day a system destitute of any shadow of proof. . . .should be accepted as a philosophy, and should enable adherents to string upon its thread of hypotheses our vast and weighty stores of knowledge is surpassing strange."


            In a truly monumental work (published in 1954) by Dr. Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund, Sweden, he gives the results of his life's studies in genetics and other subjects.  Speaking of fossil flora, he says,

            "If we look at the peculiar main groups of the fossil flora, it is quite striking that at definite intervals of geological time they are ALL AT ONCE and QUITE SUDDENLY THERE; and, moreover, in full bloom in all their manifold forms. . . .Furthermore, at the end of their existence (if they are now extinct) they do not change into forms which are transitional towards the main types of the next period: such are entirely lacking.  This all stands in as crass a contradiction to the evolutionary interpretation as could possibly be imagined.  There is not even a caricature of an evolution."

            His general conclusion is:  "The final result of all my investigations and study, namely, that the idea of evolution, tested by experiments in speciation and allied sciences, always lead to incredible contradictions and confusing consequences on account of which the theory of evolution ought to be entirely abandoned, will no doubt enrage many; and even more so my conclusion that the theory of evolution can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research.  It obstructs — as has been repeatedly shown — the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material.  For (to the evolutionists) everything must ultimately be forced to fit this speculative theory.  An exact biology cannot therefore be built up." 

            Let us now consider the efforts of evolutionists to trace man's descent from the lower primates through FOSSIL MEN. . . "MISSING LINKS"

(Anthropologists themselves do not use the term "missing links" — though their theories and conclusions justify the popular use of the term;  hence we use it in our discussion). 

            We reject the hypothesis that man is descended from the lower animals.  Anthropologists, who accept the theory of evolution, believe men are "not direct descendants of apes. . . .but both apes and men descended from the same ancestor."  Consider these truths:

            1.  Consider well this fact:  the brain volumes of living men vary from 790 cc. to 2,350 cc.  Then too, there are microcephalic idiots with brain volumes of 500 cc. and less.  These unfortunate individuals are found in every human race.  Living apes' brains vary from 87 cc. to 685 cc. *

* (These figures are taken from Raymond A. Dart's article on "South African Man-Apes," in the 1955 Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution).  Consider too the variation in sizes of skulls from infants to adults, from male to female, from seven foot giants to four foot pygmies — all human skulls.  Some diseased human skulls are actually smaller than the skulls of the larger apes!

            2.  Consider also this fact:  Researchers have scoured every continent and every major island in the world, during the last 100 years, in a frantic search for "missing links" (skulls), and in the course of their searching they have found and discarded tens of thousands of skulls — and kept out a few bushel baskets full as the "missing links."  Some that they prize most highly are but small portions of a skull!  We are told they discard the rejected specimens usually "because there is no stratigraphical proof of their age."  But the methods of arriving at the age of either bones or strata are highly uncertain — subject to vastly different interpretations.

            3.  Consider this fact:  There has been bitter controversy over every so-called "missing link."  Some experts will label a bone "human," while others will say most emphatically it is from an ape.  Some will say the creature that possessed the bone walked upright; others will say that he most certainly walked on all fours. 

            We are of the opinion that the entire effort to find and reconstruct MISSING LINKS between apes and men is a pathetic farce, entirely beside the point.  Their whole desire to find such "missing links" is based on a theory — the theory of evolution — a vain, misleading theory.  If they do find an ancient bone fragment, they can not always tell with certainty what it is.  So we suggest to the evolutionists a better way:  Instead of searching for skull bones, that the experts can not and will not agree on, why not concentrate on


            There is a  radical difference between the hind hand-foot of an ape and the foot of a man.  The hind hand-foot of the ape has a long thumb, enabling him to grasp the limb of a tree; the foot of man has toes that enable him to walk upright, but do not enable him to grasp the limb of a tree!   So let all searchers give up this vain search for missing skull bones — for they can not prove anything when they find them.  Let them rather search for foot bones that show graduations from THE HAND-FOOT OF AN APE TO THE FOOT OF A MAN.  If such a series of complete foot bones are found, in intermediary stages from the hind hand-foot of an ape to the foot of man, they will have a positive argument!

            4.  Consider this fact:  Since the foot of an ape is so radically different from the foot of man, and his method of walking upright is "awkward," we are told that

            "Rather late in history, there ventured a queer, somewhat old-fashioned mammal, which had evolved, for reasons still not clearly understood, A FANTASTICALLY AWKWARD MODE OF PROGRESSION.  It walked on its hind feet. . . .It was venturing late into a world dominated by fleet runners and swift killers.  BY ALL THE BIOLOGICAL LAWS THIS GANGLING, ILL-ARMED BEAST SHOULD HAVE PERISHED, but you who read these lines are its descendants" (Loren C. Eiseley, in "Fossil Man," Scientific American.  Caps ours). 

            One of the nation's leading anthropologists tells the world that man's upright posture and awkward way of walking put him at such a disadvantage that he had practically no chance of surviving the swift, deadly animal predators — but survive he did!  If evolution were factual, and if Dr. Eiseley's judgment is correct, man would probably NOT have survived his "evolutionary" experiment — and you and I would not be here; but as we are here, we must give the credit to creation by the All-wise and All-powerful Creator!

            5.  The Biblical account of the creation of man (see Genesis 2:7) leaves no room for the theory of "Theistic evolutionists" who believe that "at some point in the evolution from the ape-like ancestors to man God put a human 'soul' in the creature and called it man."  But the Biblical account of the creation of both Adam and Eve completely negates the vain theory of Theistic evolution. (See Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7, 18-25).

            6.  Consider this fact, even if the body of man evolved from the lower animals, one has yet to explain the amazing mind of man.  (See our discussion of this in Chapter 11).  Quoting Dr. Eiseley again:

            "A student of man's evolution on earth is confronted today with an odd paradox.  From a wealth of skulls and bones unearthed in the last few decades we can now piece together a reasonably convincing account of how and from what forebears man first came into existence more than a million years ago.  But there the story trails into mystery.  How the primeval human creature evolved into Homo sapiens, WHAT FORCES PRECIPITATED THE ENORMOUS EXPANSION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN — these problems ironically still baffle us." (Op. cit.) 

            Since there is no scientific evidence whatever of the possibility of the transformism of one genus into another, the "wealth of skulls and bones" that have convinced Dr. Eiseley of the evolution of men leave us uninfluenced — especially since we know that evolutionists can NOT account for the marvelous mind of man.  Some other explanation is necessary, and the only explanation that really solves all problems is, man was created by God in His own image and likeness, as the Bible says (Genesis 1:26, 27).

            All scientists do not have Dr. Eiseley's faith in "skulls and bones."  Austin H. Clark, Smithsonian Institute biologist said:

            "Man is NOT an ape and in spite of the similarity between them there is not the slightest evidence that man is descended from an ape. . . .

            "While man's bodily structure is most nearly like that of the man-like apes, yet all the early remains of prehistoric man so far discovered are distinctly those of man, or are the misinterpreted fragments of apes.  NO MISSING LINK HAS EVER BEEN FOUND."

            "There is no fossil evidence whatever that the most ancient man was not a man.  There are no such things as missing links.  Missing links are misinterpretations.  Fossil skulls which have been dug up and advanced as missing links, showing connections between man and monkey, have all been shown as misinterpretations."

            The theories of modern anthropologists are in a state of flux and uncertainty.  This can be seen from Dr. Eiseley's article:

            "Is Pithecanthropus erectus (Dubois' 'missing link' of 1892) safe from the heretical hands of the modern generation of anthropologists? . . . .

            "In the 1890s all that was needed to tell the story of human evolution was to arrange on a classroom desk the skull of a chimpanzee, the skull cap of pithecanthropus and the skull of Neanderthal.  If the instructor placed his own head at the end of the line, a student could comprehend in a glance the full course of human evolution. . . .Today this state of affairs is vastly changed.  We have a series of low-vaulted massive skulls with jutting brow ridges . . . .a fairly comprehensive gallery of 'cave men.'  Pithecanthropus belongs in this gallery.  Though at various levels of development in brain size, we can say with assurance THAT THEY ARE ALL MEN.  They represent the true human plateau.  . . . They ranged from Java and China to the Middle East, Africa and Europe. . . . .

            "(Now) here is a point where tempers rise and staid investigators jab excited fingers at one another.  In our gallery of beetle-browed ancestors there are three or four specimens that throw the whole sequence out of order.  They are the well-known Piltdown skull, (Since proven to be a hoax). the Swanscombe skull and the Fentechevade cranium . . . . These three -- well documented finds suggest NOT beetle-browed cave men, but true Homo sapiens or something approaching him." 

            Here we find these amazing inferences:  Modern anthropologists are warring amongst themselves, and their theories about the descent of man are in a state of great confusion.  Furthermore, we are frankly told that the prize exhibits of yesterday (Pithecanthropus " [ "Java Man," ]  "Swanscombe," "Fontechevade," etc.) are NOT "missing links" — intermediates between apes and men — but are ALL ACTUALLY MEN!  And that is exactly what many of us who are Bible believers have been saying for years! 

            And then Dr. Eiseley further states (speaking of the Australopithecines of Africa),

            "In South Africa we have a variable assemblage of walking APES with many human anatomical characters." (Op. cit.) (He tells also of some lemurs of Madagascar that stand on their hind legs "like little men.").

            And that, too, is what many scientists, as well as Bible believers, have said for years — the South African skulls are from APES, not men, nor intermediates.

            Listen again to Dr. Eiseley:

            "We are no longer sure that the human precursor first arose in Asia.  The great tablelands of Tibet and the neighboring regions HAVE YIELDED NO TRACE OF THIS EARLY STAGE.  One of our greatest authorities upon fossil man in Asia, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin . . .is now convinced that Africa is the original homeland of the human race." (Op. cit.) 

            And so our leading evolutionists today are leading the race back to the apes of Africa — not a very exalted origin for man, who walks upright and who "has eternity in his heart."

            But Dr. Eiseley is not sure of himself, nor of his belief.  He says,

            "Two facets of the 'mystery of man' deserve our particular attention:

            (1)  How did man achieve his upright posture, and  (2)  how did the human brain arise, and what has carried it to its present peak of achievement?  Neither of these questions has, in my opinion, been satisfactorily answered.

            He also mentions a third problem he has.  "It is difficult to see precisely why ONLY ONE GROUP (of primates) TOOK TO BIPEDAL HABITS.  Other primates, notably the Baboons, have taken to a ground existence, but in spite of a considerable manual dexterity, they have retained a four-footed posture."  (Op. cit.).

            Yes, Dr. Eiseley; those questions present real problems to you, for which evolution HAS NO SOLUTION.  We urge you to forsake the bickering uncertainties, the confusion, the heated arguments, and the "finger pointing" of the stymied evolutionists, and admit the fact of God's direct creative work — then all these problems have a satisfactory solution and answer. 


            As we have been told by Dr. Eiseley that anthropologists have classified as "men" the prize exhibits of evolutionists of yesterday, it seems almost pointless to review these famous so-called "Missing links."  However, it is good to remind ourselves of what evolutionists have done and believed to support their theory.  Let us take a hurried look at some of the better known. 

            (1)  Pithecanthropus erectus — "Java man."  Starting with ONE BONE from the top of the skull, discovered by Dr. Eugene Dubois in 1891, in Java, and a leg bone and two molars, a plaster-of-Paris "reconstruction" was made, from the waist up, showing a flat nose, short chin, with a bull neck."  In the same general area were found "three adult's skulls . . . in fair shape. . . and parts of the upper and lower jaws with a number of teeth."  So "Pithecanthropus" is a RECONSTRUCTION, made from the imagination of what an evolutionist thought he should look like!  Many thousands of pictures of Pithecanthropus have been taken and published in school books.

            In recent years other fossils of "Pithecanthropus" have been found, but nothing to justify the imaginative "reconstruction."

            (2)  "The Heidelberg Man."  In this instance they had only a jawbone, discovered by two workmen in a sandpit near Heidelberg, in Germany, in 1907.  Dr. H. F. Osborn made a "reconstruction," starting with this jawbone, of an ape-like creature, carrying the carcass of a wild boar over his shoulder.  Anthropologist Hrdlicka said that the teeth of this jaw "are unquestionably human teeth."

            Many living people "have the same type of receding chin indicated by the Heidelberg jaw."

            (3)  "Sinanthropus Pekinesis" — "Pekin Man." Many skulls and skull fragments were found in cave deposits near Peking, China, in 1929.  All of these skulls "fit within the range of humans skulls of today."  A "reconstruction" of Sinanthropus was made by Dr. Franz Weidenrich, which makes one think of intermediate creature, between apes and men.  But again, the RECONSTRUCTION was conceived in the mind of an evolutionist, and represents what he SUPPOSED and WANTED it to look like!  Dr. Davidson Black, of the Rockefeller Foundation, said that "all of these skulls (found near Peking and Choukoutien, China) were skulls of men."

            (4)  Eoanthropus.   Charles Dawson, of Piltdown, England, announced in 1911 that workmen had found parts of a cranium that apparently were from a primitive type of man.  Later a lower jaw and some teeth were found.  The English paleontologist Sir Arthur S. Woodward decided that the bones were of a now-extinct type of man, which he called Eoanthropus (dawn man) and which also became known as Piltdown man.  Today we all know that Eoanthropus was a deliberately planned hoax — a hoax that deceived the world's leading anthropologists for forty years!

            (5)  The Swanscombe skull, found in a gravel bed at Swanscombe, England, in 1935, consisted of the back and one side of a woman's skull.  "It was only pieces of a skull cap, and not the whole skull or face" (Early Modern Men, page 26).  There is not enough of the skull to prove anything though it is usually classified as "Neanderthal."

            (6)  The Fontechevade skulls, found in France.  One author laments, "If we only had enough of this to be sure the brow ridge belonged to an adult, male individual, we'd be well off."  (Early Modern Men).  "But that brow ridge," he continues "might have come from a youngish female Neanderthaler."  Here again, there is not enough of the skulls to make positive identification.

            (7)  The first Neanderthal skull cap was discovered in 1857 in a limestone cave, near Dusseldorf, Germany.  Virchow, the great German pathologist, declared it was the cranium of an idiot!

            Anthropologists tell us that since the original find, "there have been over 100 'Neanderthal' skulls found; 20 were in good condition."  Admitting there was a type or race of men that anthropologists call "Neanderthal," that is now extinct, one has proven no more than that a distinct "race (such as the Biblical "Canaanites" or "Hittites") that once lived is now extinct.  It is impossible to prove the great ages often credited to these races (Neanderthal, Heidelberg, etc.).  They are in no sense in an "evolutionary chain."

            Outline of Science (page 80) makes this interesting observation, "At the same time there lived (in the same community as "Neanderthal" man) a race which resembles very much our present Negro.  It is difficult to believe that such vast changes (as asserted by evolutionists) should have taken place in the Neanderthal man and left the progenitor of the Negro, the Grimald race, untouched."

            So much has been said and written about Neanderthal man, we want to quote an important statement from J. E. Weckler, in his article on "NEANDERTHAL MAN," in the December, 1957, "Scientific American."

            "The fossils (of man) leave us mystified about his beginnings.  Long study of the skulls has failed to give any conclusive picture of man's early evolution; in fact, many of the theories have not stood the test of new fossil finds.  Among all the enigmas, Neanderthal man, . . .is still perhaps the most puzzling."

            To show the confusion and uncertainty that dwells in the camp of the anthropologists, we quote again from Mr. Weckler:

            "The oldest (of the fossils found in Europe) is the jaw of Heidelberg man, believed to date from about 500,000 years ago.  Heidelberg man was once thought to be an ancestor of Neanderthal, BUT HIS TEETH TURN OUT TO BE MORE ADVANCED THAN NEANDERTHAL'S, and like those of Homo sapiens."

            Even though evolutionists attached great ages to all these skulls, it can be said with assurance, backed by the testimony of qualified anthropologists, that ALL of the foregoing skulls and types are HUMAN.

            (8)  Australopithecus africanus, i.e., the South African ape.  Dr. Robert Broom and J. T. Robinson (and others) found the remains of "about 100 different infantile, adolescent, and adult . . . specimens of these australopithecines from Taungs, 80 miles north of Kimberly, S. Africa (and from other sites in South Africa)."  Undoubtedly, these are the skulls of APES.

            "Unfortunately (for the evolutionist) it has been difficult to link the man-apes to the tools (found in the vicinity).  The man-ape's bones have been found only in caves, whereas the tools generally have turned up in open river valleys, where bones are not preserved."  REMEMBER, APES DO NOT MAKE OR USE TOOLS.

            Here is a touch of unthinking inconsistency often found in the statements of evolutionists.  "Some stone tools found associated with fossil bones of australopithecines."  (Reported in Nature, a British journal, by Dr. J. T. Robinson and R. J. Mason, of the Archeological Survey of the Union of South Africa).  We quote from "Science Digest:"

            "Finding the tools with the fozzilized bones of the man-apes does not necessarily mean that Ausrtalopithecus either made or used the tools, Dr. Robinson points out."  "Although the Australopithecines," adds Mr. Mason, "may not have been capable of inventing and making tools, it seems very possible they were intelligent enough to make use of them."  If they weren't intelligent enough to INVENT them, no tools would be there for them to use, if they were man's ancestors and man had not yet been "evolved." 

            All reputable anthropologists agree that the Australopithecines were APES, though of course most of them who are evolutionists will say they were "man-apes."  Some who believe in evolution see in them ancestors of man.  But this has been challenged.  In 1951 Dr. Montague Francis Ashley Montagu (Prof., of Anthropology) wrote, "It is quite possible that the Australopithecines pursued a parallel evolution with early man."  ( An introduction to Physical Anthropology, (page 120). 

            (9)  Zinjanthropus boisei — fossil bones found in 1959 by Dr. L. S. B. Leakev, in Olduvai Gorge, East Africa.: said to be 2,000,000 years old.  How did they arrive at this age?  By dating the rocks in which the bones were imbedded!  This is a ridiculous claim that only the credulous will accept.  The earth is frequently beset by upheavals and catastrophes, caused by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, tidal waves, slipping of the earth's surface, erosion by glaciers, and other natural cataclysms.  These bones could be of comparatively recent origin.  No one knows, or can know, how old they are.  (See Note on "Zinjanthropus" in ADDENDUM, page 343).

            In all likelihood, Zinjanthropus is an ape, and is "no wit nearer man than the Austrolops (apes) . . . .The skull (seems to be) what a late adolescent ape's would be.  The teeth may look 'human' to a degree, but countless young apes, especially females, have had human-looking teeth. . . .When the bony crest, (the sagittal crest, belonging to big male apes — gorilla's) rises on the calvarium, you have an ape, not a human.  There is such a crest on Zinjanthropus. . . The fact is, Dr. Leakey found an ape, not a man." (L. V. Cleveland, in Vol. 9, Anti-Evolution Compendium), 

            All evolution can EVER do is to advance a THEORY that modern man descended from "some ape-like ancestor."  The Bible believer has this three-fold assurance that man was CREATED in the image of God:           

            (1)  The Bible that gives full evidence that it is a revelation from God, clearly teaches that man was created in God's image (Genesis 1:26, 27).

            (2)  Christ, the Son of God — the One who demonstrated the truthfulness of His claims to deity by His resurrection from the dead (see Romans 1:4) — clearly tells us that God created mankind: male and female: (see Matthew 19:4).  If Christ be God — and all true Christians believe He is — then He knows these facts, and His Word is to be believed.

            (3)  No facts in nature or in the realm of science have ever upheld the theory of evolution that teaches that the higher genera evolved from the lower.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN NATURE AS TRANSFORMISM (transmutation) FROM ONE GENUS TO ANOTHER.  So, the evolutionists are promulgating a theory that is scientifically undemonstrable, and not true to fact.

            The issue finally devolves into this: Whom are you going to believe — Christ or the modern evolutionist?  Will you rely on FACTS or THEORIES? 


            We already have called attention to the colossal fraud perpetrated by, or in the name of, Charles Dawson, anthropologist of England, in foisting off on the public (and the world of science as well) the "Piltdown Man." (see "The Great Piltdown Hoax," Published by Smithsonian Institute).  True science cannot be blamed for such a forgery, but the whole affair shows that MANY SCIENTISTS CAN EASILY BE DECEIVED.

            Many people think that it takes many thousands of years to produce a fossil.  This is not necessarily so.  There are fossil men in the ruins of Pompeii, overwhelmed by an eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, in 70 A.D. 

            A fossilized Mexican sombrero was found not many years ago; it couldn't have been over 200 years old! (Harry Rimmer).

            True, the fossilized bones of man have been found in great abundance — but such fossils need not necessarily be over a few thousand years old.  Some will say that, through the modern "fluorine" test, it has been proven that some human fossils go back to at least the Middle Pleistocene (500,000 years ago).  But here again modern anthropologists completely ignore the Flood, with its universal spread of highly mineralized sea water all over the face of the earth.  Naturally, bones that soak for months in sea water and that are covered with earth soaked with sea water for several years will absorb fluorine far quicker than bones that lie in ground with very little fluorine content. * All authorities agree that the "rate of the accumulation of fluorine depends on the fluorine content of the soil in each particular area" — hence "fluorine dating" is relative, depending on the fluorine content of the soil where the fossil is buried.  Then too, bones, through local floods and washouts, may and do change their environment — hence change their rate of fluorine absorption.  All of these possibilities make the "fluorine test" unreliable as far as dates are concerned.

            * It would be an interesting experiment to soak human bones in sea water for a few years and compare the rate of fluorine absorption with bones (1) buried in a damp soil, and (2) bones bleaching on top of the soil.  Even with such information, since no one knows positively the history of any particular fossil, during the past thousands of years, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to give any scientific reliability to the fluorine test.  It is also quite possible that the rate of fluorine absorption decreases as fluorine saturation approaches. 

            It has not been long since William Jennings Bryan was publicly ridiculed for refusing to believe that Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii, the so-called "Nebraska Man," was a million years old.  "Hesperopithecus" was a reconstruction — this "man-like ape" was built from head to foot from a single tooth!  Later it was found that this tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, by Dr. Harry Rimmer).

            Another example of how anthropologists have been mislead is in how they interpreted the main example of the classical Neanderthals, "the Old Man of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints." Almost the complete skeleton was found, including twenty-one vertebrae.  The structure of the vertebrae seemed to suggest that there was no cervical curve in the vertebral column.  Those doing the RECONSTRUCTION decided that Neanderthal Man walked with a bent knee gait and that he was stooped with his head hanging forward.  "This 'RECONSTRUCTION' was generally accepted until December, 1956, when William L. Straus, Jr., in a paper presented to the anthropology section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science declared that Neanderthal Man walked as erect as we.  Straus had made an intensive investigation of the original skeleton and discovered that the 'old man' was suffering from the advanced stages of osteo-arthritis of the spine!  That of course was the reason for the lack of a cervical curve in the spine."  (From the paper, "Paleoanthropic vs. Neanthropic Fossil Men,"  by Claude Stipe, anthropology professor).

            See what we mean when we say that even scientists are easily misled?  It is extremely hazardous to make reconstructions from ancient bones — parts of skeletons.

            Dr. Wilhelm Gieseler, of the University of Munich, is reported to have made a study of Pithecanthropus erectus, and then to have given his considered opinion.  He stated that he believed that Pithecanthropus was "human," largely on the basis that "his eye-sockets are man-like rather than ape-like."  Now recall these eye-sockets were part of the RECONSTRUCTION job and were made out of plaster of Paris!

             Prof. Ernst Haeckel, German zoologist, was tried and convicted by a university court at Jena on the charge that his charts, attempting to prove the "recapitulation" theory of evolution, were deliberately altered from the facts of embryology to bolster his theory.  He finally admitted that he had made certain "alterations" that were NOT true to physiology; but he excused himself by saying that many other embryologists and zoologists of his time were guilty of the same procedure!

            Consider the "logic" of a prominent evolutionist, who said,

            "Evolution is more then proved by the bare consideration that no alternative remains. . . except creation.  . . .'Spontaneous generation is quite the ordinary thing; we have only to remember that matter was from the very first ready to produce life.  . . .At some time or other spontaneous generation MUST have taken place.  If the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter MUST have arisen from non-living matter; therefore life DID originate thus, and the truth of evolution is established."   (See, The Case for Creation, page 29).

            Refusing to believe in creation, this "thinker" (?) argues, that because evolution must be true, because life is here, it HAD to come by spontaneous generation!  What puerility! 


            Modern evolutionists believe that "the earliest fossil bones of men yet found are about half a million years old."  (Prehistoric Men, by Robert J. Braidwood, Dep't of Anthropology, University of Chicago).  He continues, "It is sure that mankind is older than half a million years, but no fortunate accident of discovery has yet given us evidence to prove it."  (Op. cit.).  To a paleontologist, a half million years is "recent" in the history of the earth — so all biologists and anthropologists state that man's advent on earth is comparatively "recent." even though they mean by that from one-half to twenty million  years ago. 

            "Prehistoric men did not appear until long after the great dinosaurs had disappeared. . . .Paleontologists know that fossils of men and of dinosaurs are not found in the same geological period.  The fossils of dinosaurs come in early periods, the fossils of men much later."  (Op. cit.) 

            As we seek to consider the subject of the Age of Mankind objectively, we are struck with a fact of outstanding importance:

            (1)  Man's "written history" — when man began to write — DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL ABOUT 5,000 years ago.  (Op. cit.).  That would be about 3,000 B.C. 

            This remarkable fact — that "written history" begins from 3000 to 3500 B.C. conforms closely to the Bible chronology of mankind!

            Dr. Eiseley says that in the Second Interglacial period MAN'S BRAIN HAD REACHED ITS PRESENT SIZE.  This is said to be about 500,000 years ago.  We would like to ask Dr. Eiseley, IF mankind has had its present brain capacity for half a million years, why did not men learn to write and read much sooner?  He admits that

            "Stone age savages of today are capable of learning to fly airplanes, play chess and take on the virtues and vices of advanced society."  (Fossil Man). 

            (2)  How can one explain the phenomenon of hundreds of highly developed languages, the world over, even among primitive tribes, IF language evolved slowly through the ages?  The evidence is, all tribes and races obtained the use of language SUDDENLY; and that fits in with the Bible record of Divine creation. 

            If men, with brains the size of man's brain, can learn "to fly airplanes and play chess" in ONE GENERATION — why did it take mankind 500,000 years to learn to read and write?  It does not make sense.

            Lay aside men's theories of evolution — that man slowly evolved from the lower animals — and the facts in the case indicate that mankind has been on earth for only about 6,000 to 8000 years — a few thousand rather than a few hundred thousand years.

            (3)  In addition to the evidence of "writing" we have another corroborative fact:  Archeological evidence indicates that "Food production  probably began in the Near East somewhere between 6,000 and 5,000 B.C."  (Op. cit.).

            By "food producing" economy, paleontologists mean, "men began producing their food, instead of simply collecting it."  This they describe as "a revolution, just as important as the Industrial Revolution.  In it men learned to domesticate plants and animals."

            "See the picture of man's life after food-production had begun.  He stored his meat 'on the hoof,' his grain he stored in silos or pottery jars.  He lived in a house; it was worth his while to build one, because he couldn't move too far from his fields or flocks. . . .They all lived close to their flocks and fields in a village."  (Op. cit.). 

            Now, we ask again — IF MANKIND HAD ITS PRESENT BRAIN FOR THE PAST 500,000 years, why is it they did not plant more crops and herd sheep until a few thousand years ago?  It does not make sense.

            Leaving out the theory of evolution with its long ages for mankind, the actual facts of history clearly indicate JUST WHAT THE BIBLE INDICATES THAT GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE ABOUT 6,000 TO 8,000 YEARS AGO!

            (4)  Furthermore, it can be demonstrated, by taking the rate of population increase, per century, and working back from our present world population of 3,500,000,000, (when this book was written -- Typist) that mankind started with two people not very long ago! *  The late Sir Ambrose Fleming F. R. S., pointed out,

            "If mankind had existed on earth in the vast periods of time invented by evolutionary speculation, the world. . . .could not possibly have accommodated the human race — a fact to which vital statistics give increasing point." 

            * "On the first Christmas Day the population of our planet was about 250,000,000.  Sixteen centuries later human numbers had climbed to a little more than 500,000,000.  Today there are 2,500,000,000 of us."  (more now! typist) Pages 8, 9, Brave New World Revisited, by Aldous Huxley).  Other figures are available that point back to the beginning of mankind a few millennia before Christ.


            In conclusion let us say, A THOUSAND FACTS, TEN THOUSAND VOICES, A MILLION SPECIALIZED PLANTS AND ANIMALS bear witness to DIVINE CREATION!  And what speaks forth for evolution?  Only "unproven and unprovable theories!"

            Let man have the dignity that GOD gave him, by creating him in His own image and likeness!  Teach man that he is descended from the beasts, and he will soon act like a beast.  Teach man that he is a mere animal — a cog in the social machine — and communism will enslave him.  Teach man he is created by, and has a responsibility to, God — and the dignity of human life, and the importance thereof, will be brought into government.

            Teach man, as the Bible does, that though he is created in the image of God, the race is fallen, and needs a Saviour, and that men must turn to God, through Christ, for His salvation, His righteousness, His love, and His holiness.

            Let our young people know that evolution is a baseless, groundless theory, and that the facts are all on the side of creationism, and they then will not be swept off their feet by the ipse dixit of biased professors and the propoganda of blinded evolutionists.

            One reason so many people are confused and misled by the teaching of evolution is, practically all biology teachers today teach evolution and tell their classes, "Every educated person today believes in evolution."  And so the young people are misled — and deceived.  The time has come to give facts, give light, give the truth to our young people.  Let them know that evolution is NOT true — that it is a fable, a myth, an unproven and unprovable theory.  The Word of God is true — and its teachings can be defended!  Arise, in this day of battle, and stand by the eternal truth of God's Word!  Honor God as the Creator, and Christ as the Redeemer and the Bible as God's Word!

            Encourage research, * let the light of true knowledge flood our classrooms, but do not lock God outside the door!  For after all, the God who made us demands an accounting!  We must stand before His Judgment Throne some day! 

            "God . . now commandeth all men everywhere to repent (and believe the Gospel): because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man (Christ Jesus) whom he hath ordained; whereof He hath raised Him (Christ) from the dead." (Acts 17:30, 31). 

            * Evolutionists often accuse creationists of believing in "magic" when they give credit to the Creator for His wonderful works.  It is not accepting a "magical" explanation to believe that a Supreme Being created the endless marvels in our world and universe — it is just good common sense; for "creation demands a Creator" as much as a house demands a builder.

            Those who credit blind, senseless evolution with the innumerable miracles of life all around us are the ones who really resort to "magic" — for they ascribe the most wonderful works to an imaginary, theoretical force that exists only in the imagination of evolutionists.