The conclusions of the blood tests are unreliable and uncertain. W. B.

Scott, an expert evolutionist, says, "It must not be supposed that there is any exact mathematical ratio between the degrees of relationship indicated by the blood tests, and those which are shown by anatomical and palaeontological evidence.... It could hardly be maintained that an ostrich and a parrot are more nearly allied than a wolf and a hyena, and yet that would be the inference from the blood tests."

Prof. Rossle, in 1905, according to McCann, presented evidence to show that the blood reaction does not in any manner indicate how closely any two animals are related; and that evidence based on resemblance of blood is not trustworthy in support of a common relationship. In many cases, transfusions of the human blood into apes have positive reactions. We do not make pets of the ape, baboon or chimpanzee, but of the dog whose traits are far more nearly human. If any brute ancestor is possible, have not the evolutionists guessed the wrong animal?

34. EMBRYOLOGY

Embryology, or the Recapitulation Theory, is the last, and perhaps the least important of the claims advanced in favor of evolution. It is claimed that the whole history of evolution is briefly repeated in the early stages of embryonic life. W. B. Scott, in the "Theory of Evolution," says, "Thirty years ago, the recapitulation theory was well nigh universally accepted. Nowadays it is very seriously questioned, and by some high authorities is altogether denied."

It is hard to see why the history of the species should be repeated by the embryo. It is difficult to crowd the history of ages into a few days or weeks. It must be enormously abbreviated. It is a physical impossibility. Changes caused by many environments must take place in the same environment, contradicting the theory of evolution. So many exceptions must be made that there can be no universal law. Such general similarity as we find in embryonic life, may be accounted for, on the ground that the Creator used one general plan with unlimited variation, never repeating himself so as to make two faces or two leaves or two grains of sand exactly alike.

"Embryology is an ancient ma.n.u.script with many of the sheets lost, others displaced, and with spurious pa.s.sages interpolated by a later hand." It is hard to construct a syllogism, showing the force of the argument from Embryology. Try it.

Various other evolution arguments are answered in PART ONE, and completely refuted by UP-TO-DATE SCIENTIFIC FACTS. No one has yet noted an error, nor answered an argument. If all students, teachers, ministers, etc., had this book (pp. 116-7), evolutionists could no longer conceal the "unanswerable arguments," nor answer them by ridicule or abuse.

PART THREE

THE SOUL

35. THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL

Evolution fails to account for the origin of the body of man. Still more emphatically, does it fail to account for the origin of the soul, or spiritual part of man. This is part of the stupendous task of evolution. Its advocates give it little or no attention. We are not surprised. If they _could_ show the evolution of the human body _probable_ or even _possible_, they can never account for the origin of the soul, save by creation of Almighty G.o.d. We can not release evolutionists upon the plea that they cannot account for the faculties and spiritual endowments of man. This is a confession of complete failure. Though invisible to the eye or the microscope, they are positive realities. They can not be dismissed with a wave of the hand or a gesture of contempt. We have a right to demand an explanation for every phenomenon connected with the body or soul of man. The task may be heavy, and even impossible, yet every hypothesis must bear every test or confess failure. They have undertaken to propose a scheme that will account for the origin of man, as he is, soul and body, and if they fail, the hypothesis fails.

How do we account for the existence of each individual soul? It can not be the product of the arrangement of the material of the brain, as the materialists do vainly teach. It can not be the product of evolution, nor a growth from the father or mother. The soul is not transmitted to be modified or changed. It is indivisible. The soul of the child is not a part of the soul of either parent. The parents suffer no mental loss from the new soul. It must be created before it can grow. G.o.d creates each soul without doubt, and so G.o.d created the souls of Adam and Eve. If creation is possible now, it was possible at the beginning of the race. If G.o.d creates the soul now, a.n.a.logy teaches strongly the creation of the souls of Adam and Eve. If evolution be true, there was no creation in the past, and is none now. This is contradicted by the facts every day and every hour.

36. PERSONALITY

An evolutionist writes: "We do not undertake to account for personality." We reply, "That is a part of your problem. You have undertaken to solve the riddle of the universe by excluding all evidence of an existing and active G.o.d, and we can not release you because a feature of the problem may be unusually difficult or embarra.s.sing, or even fatal to your theory. It is a fight to the death in the interest of truth; and we purpose to use every weapon of science against a theory so unscientific, so improbable, so far reaching, and so baneful in its effects. It takes faith, hope and comfort from the heart of the Christian, destroys belief in G.o.d, and sends mult.i.tudes to the lost world."

Personality is consciousness of individuality. When did personality begin? When did any members of the species become conscious of personality? When did they begin to realize and to say in thought, "I am a living being." What animals are conscious of personality? Any of our cousins of the monkey tribe? Is the horse conscious of personality, or the ox, the cat or the dog? If so, does the skunk have personality, the mouse, the flea, the worm, the tadpole, the microscopic animal? If so, do our other cousins have personality,--the trees, the vines, the flowers, the thorn and the brier, the cactus and the thistle, and the microscopic disease germs? If so, when did personality begin? With the first primordial germ? If so, were there two personalities when the germ split in two, and became two, animal and plant? You can not split a man up into two parts with a personality to each part. Personality is indivisible. It is a consciousness of that indivisibility. If personality began anywhere along the line, where, when, and how did it originate? Was it spontaneous, or by chance, or was it G.o.d-given? Beyond all question, it was the gift of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator, and in no sense the product of evolution. G.o.d made man a living soul.

But if no plant or animal ever had personality, when did man first become conscious of his individuality? There is no evidence, of course, but the evolutionist must produce it, or admit failure. The evolutionist is short on evidence but long on guesses that miss the mark.

If all animals and plants came from one germ, why do animals have the senses, sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing, while plants are utterly devoid of them? They had a nearly equal chance in the race. Why the great difference?

37. INTELLECT, EMOTIONS AND WILL

The activity and energy of the soul are shown in the intellect, the emotions and the will. What evidence of these do we find in the animal world? Do we find intellect in the lobster, emotions in a worm, or will in an oyster? Whence came these elements of spiritual strength?

If developed by evolution, where, when, and how?

Have the most advanced species of animals an intellect? Do they have the emotions of love, hate, envy, pity, remorse or sympathy? Has a worm envy, a flea hate, a cat pity a hog remorse, or a horse sympathy?

If these existed in so-called pre-historic man, when, where, and how did they begin? No one can answer, because there is not a trace of proof that they ever existed.

Will natural selection explain the development of the mental faculties? Was art developed because those who lacked it perished? Do we account for the musical faculty, because those who could not sing perished? Some still live who ought to be dead! Do we account for humor because they perished who could not crack a joke? Will all eventually perish but the Irish, who will survive by their wit? Is anything mentioned in science quite so ridiculous as natural selection?

Not an animal has a trace of wit, or humor, or pathos. Not an animal has ever laughed, or spoken, or sung. The silence of the ages disproves evolution.

38. ABSTRACT REASON

When did reason begin? Do we find it in any species of plant or animal life, save man? The highest order of animals can not reason enough to start a fire or replenish one. A dog, or a cat, or even a monkey, will enjoy the warmth from a fire but will not replenish it, although they may have seen it done many times. Animals may be taught many interesting tricks; many can imitate well. But they do not have the power of reflection or abstract reason. They live for the present. They have no plans for tomorrow,---no purpose in life. They can not come to new conclusions. They can not add or subtract, multiply or divide. They can not even count. Some animals can solve very intricate problems by instinct, but instinct is the intelligence of G.o.d, and never could have come by evolution.

If reason came not from G.o.d, but from evolution, should we not expect it well developed in evolutionary man, since for the last 3,000,000 years he must have been 95 to 100 per cent, normal. If we grant the estimate of 500,000,000 years, he would have been 99.4% normal for the last 3,000,000 years. Would we not expect in that time a world of inventions and discoveries, even surpa.s.sing those of the last 100 years? The Chinese claim a mult.i.tude of inventions and a race so nearly normal as ape-men, ought to have invented language, writing, printing, the telegraph, phonograph, the wireless, the radio, television, and even greater wonders than in our age.

There is no trace of intelligence in man in all the 3,000,000 years, prior to Adam.

We should have many works excelling Homer's Iliad, Vergil's Aeneid, and Milton's Paradise Lost. We have no trace of a road, or a bridge, or a monument, like the pyramids. That no race of intelligent creatures ever lived prior to Adam is proven by lack of affirmative evidence. If it be true, as Romanes declared, that the power of abstract reason in all the species was only equal to that of a child 15 months old, then each species would possess less than one millionth of that.

39. CONSCIENCE

If the origin of the mental faculties can not be accounted for by evolution, much less can the moral faculty, the religious nature and spirituality be accounted for.

The most confirmed evolutionist will not claim that the tree or the vine or the rose, or perhaps any animal, has a conscience. If, however, conscience is a growth or development, why should it not exist in some measure in both the animal and the vegetable kingdoms?

Has any brute any idea of right or wrong? Has a hog any idea of right or wrong, of justice or injustice? What animal has ever shown regret for a wrong, or approval of right in others? If conscience is a development within the reach of every species, many of the million or more, no doubt, would have shown some conscience long ago.

But if man developed conscience, why have not our near relatives of the monkey family developed a conscience? They had the same chance as man. Why should man have a conscience, and monkeys none?

Why is there no trace of conscience in the animal or vegetable kingdom? Because it is the gift of G.o.d.

What sign of regret, repentance, or remorse, do we find in the cat or the dog, the rat or the hog? If a bull gores a sheep to death, does he express regret? Is a horse sorry if he crushes to death a child or a chicken under his hoof? Can any animal be sorry for stealing food from another? Will it take any steps to undo the wrong?

Man, according to evolution, is a creature of environment. He is a victim of brute impulse. He has no conscience, no free will, he can commit no crime. Killing is not murder. It is not sin. Man can not be responsible. Without conscience, a victim of circ.u.mstances, rushed on into crime, sin, and injustice, responsible to no G.o.d!

The heart sickens at the brightest picture evolution can paint. The difficulty of showing the evolution of the body is insuperable, but the evolution of the soul, with all its mental, moral and spiritual equipment, is an absolute impossibility. Small wonder that evolutionists are unwilling to discuss the origin of the soul.

40. SPIRITUALITY