October 22

What Is Happening to Evolution?

THE theory of evolution is again making news. But it is doing so in a way that many people did not expect.

What is happening? This: the theory of evolution is being challenged on a scale that seemed very unlikely a few years ago. From the scientific quarter the strength and quality of the assault have surprised many who thought that science had long ago settled the question of man’s origin.

But what difference could it make to you how man got here? Well, are you a student? Then likely evolution is taught in your school, as it is nearly everywhere. This evolution teaching has profoundly affected literature, medicine, history, philosophy, even religion​—and most other subjects. If evolution is in error, then much of what you are taught will be based on a wrong premise, a lie.

If you are a teacher you no doubt feel a responsibility toward your students. You want them to learn the truth. But what if evolution is not true? In that event, would not your teaching it actually contribute to the moral breakdown of today?

As a parent, you are interested in your family’s having a happy future. What does evolution offer? If a few years in a violent world is all that your children have to live for, why, they may reason, should we not lie, steal, fornicate and cheat? Is it not in this way that ‘the fit survive’ and the ‘weak are weeded out’? Wisely, you too should know the facts about the evolution teaching.

If you are a religious person, you cannot believe both evolution and the Bible. The Bible says that God created man separately; evolution says he did not. One is wrong.

If you cling to evolution, what future does it offer to you as an individual? Only death. But the Bible promises that God will destroy the entire wicked system of things in our time and bring about a peaceful new order. (Ps. 37:11, 29) In that new order, the Bible says, there will be no more sorrow, sickness, pain or death. (Rev. 21:4) Is it reasonable to reject such a prospect by insisting on evolution without making a thorough investigation?

So, the challenge before evolution is not just scientific, but also moral. And if God exists, and will take action soon, evolution and its believers will clash, head on, with him.

Hence, just what is being said about evolution these days? What does the latest scientific evidence reveal about it?

A Growing Challenge

WHY has evolution been making the news lately? For one reason, because of the nature of the scientific challenge growing against it.

It is not that just a few uninformed ‘religious fanatics’ are rejecting the idea. Evolution now is being challenged by many qualified persons who are very well informed. Scientists, educators and competent people in other fields are speaking out against it.

Also, in recent scientific literature a number of evolutionists themselves have conducted a steady drumbeat of criticism against the current theory. What they are saying is very revealing.

What Scientists Are Saying

In the book Man, Time, and Fossils evolutionist R. Moore stated: “Since 1950 the scientific evidence has pointed inescapably to one conclusion: man did not evolve in either the time or the way that Darwin and the modern evolutionists thought most probable.”

Other evolutionists agreed. In 1971 a professor of genetics from the University of California, G. L. Stebbins, an evolutionist, reflected their general attitude when he said: “Every account of human evolution written before 1950 is already or will soon be obsolete.”

Thus, by 1972 newer explanations of man’s origin had developed among evolutionists. They had abandoned many of their past ideas, and were confident that the new explanations were “fact.” But these newer ideas had barely become accepted when they too came into question. One aspect received an especially rude jolt because of evidence that came to light in late 1972.

Note a few of the many news items that appeared in November of that year: “A large section of the story of human evolution will need revision after the disclosures yesterday.” (London Times) “Existing theories of the evolution of man have been thrown into disarray.” (The Guardian, England) “The accepted theory of human evolution could easily be upset because it is based on only a few ancient skulls.” (New York Daily News) And the London Daily Mail declared that the latest evidence “could cause the biggest upset in science since Darwin said man had descended from the apes.”

Yet, all such statements resulted from only one line of evidence discovered late in 1972. There are other lines of evidence that are even more significant. Together, these have caused a growing number of people in science to question the explanations evolutionists give.

The magazine The American Biology Teacher said: “Various well known scientists express their views ranging from educated caution, to question, and on to direct opposition to the theory.” The English magazine New Scientist stated: “It is proving particularly difficult to understand the evolution of man . . . We know too little of the timing or mechanisms of evolution, nor is there enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”

The British medical journal On Call reported: “Evolution cannot be supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . . and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible.” And Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: “The typical evolutionary explanation doesn’t make sense in view of today’s knowledge.”

What Other Investigators Say

After studying the evidence, some people in other fields are making similar comments. Historian Arnold Toynbee says: “I do not think that the Darwinian theory of evolution has given a positive account of an alternative way in which the universe may have been brought into existence.”

Harvard-trained lawyer Norman Macbeth, after years of careful and impartial investigation, wrote of his findings in the book Darwin Retried (1971). The book’s publishers commented: “It suggests that a fresh start is in order and, in the present state of affairs, no theory at all may be preferable to the existing one.”

Macbeth found the evidence for evolution so flimsy that he declared, after reading a typical book by a leading evolutionist: “If I had to oppose that man in court I could get his case thrown out.” On the other hand, after reading an issue of Awake! magazine on the subject of evolution, he found it to be soundly based, scientifically accurate. As a result, he warned evolutionists not to persist in saying that those who disbelieve the evolution theory are “ignorant of scientific evidence.” Macbeth, who is not a creationist, also observed:

“In examining the single parts of classical Darwinism, I concluded that they were all sadly decayed. . . . Since decayed parts will never make a sound whole, the total theory must also be decayed . . .

“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . .

“This is not mere quibbling. The profession has worked itself into an embarrassing position when Sir Julian Huxley tells the television audience: ‘The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact,’ while at almost the same time Professor Mayr, addressing himself to serious students, says: ‘The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate.’

“Such an enormous discrepancy between two leaders . . . is bad for the standing of the profession. The public may rightly feel that it has been paltered with.”

A dictionary defines “palter” as to “deal crookedly.” And this is exactly what more and more persons have come to feel about the explanations given for evolution.

[Picture on page 5]

Theory of evolution is strongly disputed

The Seattle Times, November 21, 1971

Was Darwin wrong after all?

The Washington Daily News, December 27, 1971

Scientists Say God, Not Evolution, Created Man

The Express, Easton, Pa., May 3, 1973

Examine the Evidence

IF YOU were on trial in a court of law, would it be fair if only your opponent was allowed to present evidence? No, you would surely want the court to hear your side of the matter.

For many years, only evolution’s side has been heard in colleges, high schools, even grade schools, and in nearly all scientific literature published throughout most of the world. But now there is a rising demand to hear the other side.

The Reasonable Choice

Reasonable persons agree that the only fair method is to examine the evidence on both sides, both for and against a disputed theory. That is how one arrives at the truth.

Many scientists now admit that this is what should be done with the evolution theory. This was even noted in the foreword of a special edition of Darwin’s famous book Origin of Species. The magazine The American Biology Teacher offered this comment about it:

“W. H. Thompson, who was selected to write the foreword to a centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species had this to say: ‘As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process.

“‘This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.’”

The biology publication goes on to note another observation by Thompson, a highly respected scientist. He said:

“But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where [scientific] men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

The continued attempt to suppress criticism has become unacceptable to more persons. This can be seen by the requests being made in recent times by many scientists, educators and parents that opposing views be given equal treatment in schools. Their feeling is typified by a comment offered in the Washington, D.C., Evening Star and Daily News, in an article by W. Willoughby:

“The Bible and a large segment of competent scientists indicate to me that it all happened one way [creation]; my children, for whom I pay tax money to the state of Virginia to have educated in the best possible way, are being taught that it happened another way [evolution]. . . .

“If there is any place in the world where there should be fair play, it should be in the scientific world. Yet the [series of biology books commonly used in schools] deliberately excludes the argument for design in the origin of the universe . . .

“What I want, then, is that a well-balanced, non-cynical presentation be given in the classrooms, on the origin of man, based on the best scholarship and research each side can present.”

“Intellectually Dishonest”

Such requests have usually met with intense opposition from many evolutionists who fight against any other idea appearing in school textbooks. But, as physicist L. Dolphin wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle: “It is intellectually dishonest to fail to answer some of these problem areas in textbooks, and to exclude other scientifically based models on the grounds that they are merely fundamentalistic religious beliefs.”

Truly it is “intellectually dishonest” not to want any opposing views heard on such a disputed matter. It has to make reasonable persons ask, Why?

Reasonable persons also consider it unworthy of serious scholarship to try to stamp out criticism of evolution by dictatorial methods, by intimidation, or by attitudes such as that of prominent American scientist Isaac Asimov, who said that questioning the theory of evolution is like “attacking the theory of gravity.” He added: “It’s a fact, not speculation.”

But gravity can be demonstrated, tested, and proved in the laboratory and elsewhere. Evolution cannot, which is why so many are challenging it. No one is challenging the idea of gravity.

Trying to insult the intelligence of critics of evolution to silence them is especially “intellectually dishonest” when many evolutionists themselves admit that the theory has not been proved. In fact, Asimov himself admitted that much of evolution is built up, in his words, “from judicious guessing”!

The reality of the situation is aptly described by New Scientist when it reviewed a book supporting evolution. It said that the book “inevitably . . . often has the ‘woolliness’ to be found in recent books on the evolution of man. We frankly do not know how or why man evolved. . . . Yet if such a [book] restricted itself to the facts it would be slim indeed.”

No, it will no longer do to try to browbeat or insult persons who challenge evolution, or to imply that they are intellectually deficient. To get to the heart of the matter, we have to put the “guessing” aside and honestly analyze the facts that are available.

What happens when we do examine the facts, without the “guessing”? Does the evidence support the evolution of life from inanimate chemicals up to an apelike beast and finally to modern man? Or does it support the Bible’s view that God created man, and other kinds of life, directly? Is evolution, as one scientist says, “a fact”? Or is it, as another says, “the greatest fairy tale ever to masquerade under the name of science”?

What Should You Expect?

EVOLUTIONISTS claim that man is the end product of a process that began with lifeless chemicals in the ocean. A common description of this belief is the following, published in Science World:

“Some scientists believe that man evolved out of an ape-like creature sometime between two million and 10 million years ago. This ape-like creature probably evolved from a type of monkey millions of years earlier. The monkey evolved from a primitive primate resembling a modern tree shrew. Like all other mammals, the shrew evolved from an amphibian, and the amphibian evolved from a fish. . . . The first signs of life​—simple one-celled organisms—​developed in the ocean.

What does the Bible say? If you will read the first chapter of Genesis you will see that God is spoken of as separately creating different kinds of living things on earth, over a period of time. First was the vegetation, then the fish and flying creatures, then the land animals, and finally man.

But does the Bible say that every individual plant and animal was created directly by God? No, only basic kinds. Within each kind a great variety could develop over thousands of years. For example, many different types of cats could develop within the cat family, or different dogs in the dog family, or different humans within the human family.

However, Genesis chapter one says that each basic kind could produce offspring only “according to its kind.” So while the varieties within a kind could mate and produce offspring, that would not be true outside the kind. One kind could not mate and produce offspring with another kind. Nor could one kind ever change into another kind. That would be true no matter how long a time was involved. Thus, fish would forever stay fish, birds forever birds, land animals forever land animals, and humans forever humans.

What Evidence to Look For

If evolution is true, the evidence should support a gradual changing of one kind of living thing into another kind. There must be at least some evidence of this in living things, in the fossil record, and even in laboratory and field experiments.

But if the Bible is true, then we should not find any changing of one Genesis kind into another. There should be great variety within basic kinds, but unbridgeable gaps between basic kinds. This should be true in living things and in the fossil record. It should also be impossible for experiments to bridge these gaps between basic kinds.

If evolution is true, there should be evidence of the beginnings of new structures in living things. There should have been an abundance of developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other organs and bones. This should be true in the fossil record and even in some living things today. At the very least there should be some partially developed structures somewhere.

In addition, if evolution is true, there should be evidence that life can come into existence on its own, spontaneously, without any outside help. In fact, it should be much easier with outside help, such as in experiments of intelligent humans using complex equipment. But if the Bible is true, then, apart from creation or the divinely arranged processes of reproduction, it would be impossible for life, or living, reproducing creatures, to come into existence, whether by accident or with the help of man; the Bible says only with God is the source of life.​—Ps. 36:9.

Since evolution is said to have begun with lifeless chemicals changing into one-celled organisms, this would be a logical place to begin examining the evidence. After all the many decades of intensive experiments and gathering knowledge about the cell, what have the facts revealed?

[Picture on page 8]

If the Bible is true, you should expect great variety within a Genesis “kind.” For example, the dog family has many different varieties, which can interbreed. But they cannot interbreed with another “kind,” such as the cat family

What the Cell Tells Us

FOR evolution to have happened, lifeless chemicals had to come together to form a living cell. Scientist Isaac Asimov, in The Wellsprings of Life, says it took place in this way:

“Once upon a time, very long ago, perhaps two and a half billion years ago, under a deadly sun, in an ammoniated ocean topped by a poisonous atmosphere, in the midst of a soup of organic molecules, a nucleic acid molecule came accidentally into being that could somehow bring about the existence of another like itself​—and from that all else would follow!”

But has such a thing ever been observed to happen “accidentally”? Indeed, has it ever been made to happen by the most competent scientists?

What the Evidence Shows

The book Introduction to Geology states: “No case of spontaneous generation has ever actually been observed.” That is the simple fact. Never in history has anyone observed a living cell “accidentally” forming out of inanimate chemicals.

Scientists cannot even make this happen in their most sophisticated laboratories. True, they have produced some carbon-containing compounds, but these are far, far removed from a living cell that can reproduce itself. The publication The Cell admits that such experiments “do not explain how life actually arose from inanimate matter.”

In view of these facts, chemical engineer M. S. Keringthan writes the following to the Toronto Globe & Mail:

“My estimate is that an amoeba [a one-celled animal] consists of about 100-quadrillion atoms, principally carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, with trace amounts of others such as phosphorus, calcium and sulphur. All of these would be in compounds not easily decomposed.

“The evolutionist says, in effect, that this number of atoms, in the correct ratio, accidentally met together, split from the existing compounds, and reassembled themselves into a living amoeba. . . .

“Do we find amoebas forming in this way? Can we put the chemicals into a test tube and make an amoeba? The answer is no, so it is wrong to say it happened in the past. . . . The hypothesis of evolution collapses on the origin of life; some other explanation for the creation of life is needed.”

Also, it has amazed scientists to find out just how complicated a living cell is. Evolutionist F. Salisbury of Utah State University says: “Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined.” He estimates that the nucleus of one cell in the human body “contains about 10⁹ bits of genetic information. Written in normal-sized type, this would fill about 1,000 normal-sized, bound volumes.”

Further knowledge of the cell has revealed that all the many parts it contains are involved in complex, interrelated functions. Without all these functions taking place at the same time, it would be impossible for the cell to keep living. That is why Salisbury says: “It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless.” Since it is obvious that such a thing does not happen by accident nor is brought about by man, he laments: “There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment.”

Naturalist Joseph Wood Krutch made this interesting observation about the matter:

“A great deal of ink has been spilled over the ‘missing link’ between the [apes] and [man]. But it is as nothing by comparison with all the links which are missing​—if they ever existed—​between amoeba and that first particle of barely living matter . . .

“The difference between the animate and the inanimate, the discontinuity of the living and the nonliving, remains absolute.”

The book The Cell also says: “In many ways, the appearance of biological cells in a barren and hostile world is more improbable than the subsequent development of primitive cells into dinosaurs and primates. . . . the essential scientific question of how life began remains unsolved.”

So lifeless chemicals do not “accidentally” produce living, reproducing cells. They cannot even be made to do so by intelligent humans. One-celled animals such as the amoeba come into existence today only from an already-existing amoeba​—yes, “according to its kind.” No exception to this has ever been observed.

Hence, in the matter of the appearance of living cells, when we put the “guesswork” aside, which do you think the evidence actually supports​—the Bible or evolution?

Up the Ladder

Evolutionists say that the next step was for the ‘simple’ single-celled organisms such as the amoeba to develop into many-celled organisms. But is there any evidence of a gradual increase in complexity among such forms of life? The book Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries says:

“There are no 2-celled or 3-celled transitional forms from protozoa [one-celled animals] to metazoa [many-celled animals]. Yet the whole framework of evolution collapses if this vital link cannot be bridged.”

It has not been bridged. There is no record that one-celled animals change into two-celled or three-celled animals. There is, instead, a huge jump between the one-celled protozoa to the lowest of the many-celled metazoa. And there is no evidence whatever that protozoa turn into metazoa.

Of interest, too, is the fact that today such forms of life stay exactly as they are. None of these ‘simple’ forms of life demonstrate any desire to ‘improve’ themselves. Never do they struggle upward to become more complex forms. What justification is there, then, for saying that it happened that way in the past?

The respected publication Science, commenting on a book that propounded a theory of early evolution from one-celled forms to many-celled forms, said that the book’s explanation belonged to “science fiction.” To quote: “How many-celled animals originated and whether this step occurred one or more times and in one or more ways remain difficult and ever-debated questions that are perhaps, as John Corliss has said, ‘in the last analysis, quite unanswerable.’”

“Quite unanswerable” and “science fiction” from the viewpoint of evolution, true. But what if we examine the evidence as it is, aside from the “guesswork”? The facts fit exactly what we would expect from the Bible account. They show that the single-celled forms of life, and the many-celled forms of life, were created separately and then multiplied “according to their kinds.”

Increasing Complexity Should Show

Furthermore, such an increase in complexity, according to evolution, should show in another way, in the cell structure itself. We should expect to find some pattern reflecting this as cells advanced ‘up the ladder.’

The nucleus of living cells contains the bodies that carry inheritance traits. These bodies are called chromosomes. If evolution is true, then it would be logical to expect an orderly increase in chromosomes as life becomes more complex.

Concerning this matter, Professor Moore of Michigan State University relates:

“As a classroom professor teaching evolutionary concepts to bright, independently working students, I have been shown, often, different lists of chromosome numbers from a variety of textbook authors. . . .

“My independently thinking students formulated the question or problem: If animals changed from so-called single forms to complex multicellular forms (and they raised the same thought regarding plants), then is there any pattern of increase of chromosome number?”

Is there? Well, humans have 46 chromosomes in their body cells. Then surely, less complex plants and animals should have less. But we find that, among others, the deer mouse has 48, the striped skunk 50, the cebus monkey 54, the cow 60 and the donkey 62! Even the lowly potato has 48, and cotton 52! And the one-celled protozoa called aulacantha has 1,600 chromosomes!

So there is no pattern of increasing chromosome numbers such as one would expect if evolution were true. Instead, what we find is that each group of living things has its own special chromosome structure, and it stays that way. That is what we would expect to find if each kind was created separately, with its own characteristics, and was unrelated to other kinds.

[Picture on page 10]

An amoeba may consist of about 100 quadrillion atoms. Could this number of atoms, in the correct ratio, accidentally meet together and assemble themselves into a living amoeba?

How Does It Happen?

ANOTHER problem that must be faced is this: if evolution is true, how does it happen? What is it that makes living things change so much that single-celled plants and animals transform themselves into higher and higher forms of life?

Evolutionists say that changes inside the nucleus of the cell are responsible. They believe that the primary mechanisms involved are the genes, the segments of chromosomes that are the heredity carriers.

These gene changes are called mutations. They are said to be responsible for producing new characteristics, and the reason why one-celled forms of life could evolve all the way up to man. Professor P. Koller, British geneticist, states: “Mutations provide variability, and for this reason, they are necessary for evolutionary progress.”

Do They Produce Anything NEW?

But do these changes, mutations, really produce new characteristics? No, they do not. As Professor Moore points out: “Any gene mutation results in no more than alteration of already existing or known traits.” So every gene mutation is only a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but nothing brand new.

For instance, gene mutations may change the color, texture or length of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations, but it will always be a hand, not a bird’s wing. Furthermore, such changes only vary within a certain range, around a central average. To illustrate: people may grow 7 feet tall (Watusis) or 4 feet tall (Pygmies). A few will exceed 7 feet (the Bible refers to such a man​—Goliath, who measured 9 feet 5.7 inches) and a few dwarfs are below 4 feet. But never will mutations make people grow 20 feet tall, or only 6 inches tall. Most will vary around the central average of between 5 and 6 feet.

Also, the variations due to mutations are usually very small, and never result in totally different characteristics. That is why the author of Darwin Retried relates the following about the highly respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”

A More Serious Problem

But there is another more serious problem to this. It has to do with the nature of these changes from what is normal. The changes, whether of chromosomes or genes, are usually undesirable.

For example, of chromosome changes the book Chromosomes and Genes says: “Many produce both physical and mental disabilities.” When a human is born with forty-seven chromosomes instead of forty-six, he may be a mongoloid or have other mental and physical deficiencies. Forty-eight chromosomes produce mental defectives and physical deformities in humans.

The same thing is observed in gene mutations. Evolutionist Koller admits: “Most gene mutations are recessive and harmful, and may be lethal.” He also says: “Extensive studies have . . . demonstrated the fact that the greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”

So it is commonly acknowledged that mutations make the organisms that have them weaker, less fertile, and shorter lived than their normal counterparts. Stebbins shows that when mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones the result was always the same: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.” They could not thrive, because they were degenerate.

If mutations are so important to evolution, then we should welcome, indeed, encourage them. But note what Asimov says: “Exposure to increased radiation cannot help but increase the mutation rate. This is a bothersome fact, because most mutations are for the worse.” Yet, after admitting that, he concludes: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.” Does that sound sensible to you?

Does it seem logical that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes in living things were built up from a procedure that tears down? Remember, as evolutionists admit, “for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”

If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were incorrect? If an automobile driver made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?

Could Mutations Make An Eye?

Could the human eye, for example, have been built up by such a bungling process? For sight to be possible, all the many eye parts must be complete and in perfect working order. If the slightest thing is wrong, or any part incomplete, the eye fails to perform its function. It is useless.

Evolutionists claim that “nature” accepts only those changes that confer some immediate use or advantage to the organism. According to their theory the eye could never have formed.

Consider too that there are different types of eyes, in humans, animals, insects, birds and fish. Such a variety of eyes means that eye evolution would have had to occur, not once, but many, many times, in different ways. Have you ever heard of different cameras coming into existence in that way, “accidentally”? No, they need a designer and maker. And yet, a camera is very simple compared to an eye.

Thus, it is understandable why evolutionist Salisbury remarked of the eye: “It’s bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern [evolution] theory makes my head swim.”

In addition, how often do mutations occur? World Book encyclopedia states: “Natural mutations occurred so rarely that the researchers made little progress.” To study mutations they had to be induced by X rays and chemical means. As evolutionist Stebbins says: “Rates of mutation vary widely . . . but are always low. Direct experiments to determine the cause of ‘spontaneous’ mutations are almost impossible due to the low rate of their occurrence.’’ And Koller says: “The probability that such a mistake might occur in a gene is one in one hundred million.”

Evolution​—or Degeneration?

Thus, a mutation is called a “mistake.” The chance of one occurring is “one in one hundred million.” Of those that do occur, “for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”

Does all of this strike you as a process of improving living things, producing better, newer ones? Or does it sound much more like a process that tears down those that do exist? Is it improvement, or degeneration?

In Chromosomes and Genes we read: “Muller estimates that about six per cent of all persons are born with some tangible loss of fitness due to gene mutations. It is therefore not surprising for some biologists to believe that while our cultural and technical evolution progresses, biologically mankind is degenerating rather than improving.”

In the face of such evidence, what would you conclude? Is the very heart of the evolution theory, mutations, sound? Or, instead, does it seem far more likely that individuals within basic kinds of living things will be harmed by mutations? And do not the facts indicate that any good changes will merely produce variety within a basic kind?

To sum up this matter of mutations, the main pillar of evolution, note what Professor Moore of Michigan State University says:

“As errors, as mistakes, DNA mutational changes essentially result in loss or degeneration or degradation of known physical traits. Loss of viability, loss of reproductive capacity, and even lethal conditions are readily demonstrable as results of most gene mutations. . . .

“Some one might be prone to mention ‘favorable’ gene mutations. A change of color in moths or alteration of food use by bacteria might be cited as results of ‘favorable’ gene mutations. Nevertheless such changes of moths or bacteria are only within a kind of living organism, and not across limits of kinds. . . .

“Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gone mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process . . . is an utterance of a myth.”

[Picture on page 13]

If an auto driver made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? Yet for every useful mutation there are many thousands that are harmful

[Picture on page 14]

Could human eyes be built up by a bungling process such as mutations?

The Testimony of Living Things

WHEN we look at the world of larger living things, is there any evidence that one kind of living thing changes into another kind? Is there a gradual series of animals and plants between “lower” types and “higher” types?

If evolution is true, there should be. If the Bible is true, there should not be.

When we study the plant and animal realm that is alive today, what does it tell us? Can we observe the gradual changing of one kind into another kind?

In a book supporting evolution, Processes of Organic Evolution, we read: “To be sure, no biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms.”

Why not? Why has no one ever seen the evolution of a major group of organisms?

Evolutionists will answer that question by saying it is because evolution takes millions of years and man does not live long enough to observe it. But such a conclusion is not evidence. It is, again, “guesswork.” When we deal only with the evidence, it gives a different answer.

No Transitions

The reason why such evolution cannot be seen among living things now is that all forms of life are complete. None are observed to be in the transition stage, changing into another kind of life. Nowhere are there to be found partial organs or limbs evolving into something else. Wherever there is an eye, ear, wing, hand, foot or some other organ or structure, it is not in an “in-between” stage. It is complete, and useful to the organism that has it.

True, some have pointed to organs such as the appendix and tonsils in man, claiming that these have been ‘left over’ from evolution. But further knowledge revealed that such organs were not ‘left over’ at all, but have a definite use. The problem was that investigators did not understand their function until recently.

The fact that there are no transitional forms among living things was also noted in his day by Charles Darwin, the “father” of modern evolution. Over a century ago he wrote:

“Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”

Darwin answered by saying that the transitional forms had all been exterminated already. But does this seem reasonable? Should we not expect that at least some transitions would still be in evidence, since evolution is said to be continuing?

Why No Transitions

Why are there no transitional forms among living things? Simply because they are not in transition! They are not changing from one kind to another kind, but remain within their kinds.

While there is much variety, or changing, going on within each kind, the various kinds are kept separate. And they are kept that way by a barrier that no scientist has ever been able to overcome. What is that? The barrier of sterility between basic kinds.

To illustrate: among humans we see a vast variety of sizes, shapes, colors and abilities. Hardly any two persons look the same. Why, of the 3.8 billion people on earth now, few, if any, even have the same set of fingerprints! Yet, no matter how different they are, people everywhere are easily recognized as being of the human family.

All people can intermarry and produce children regardless of the variations that exist. But humans cannot mate with any animal and produce offspring. They can only reproduce if they stay within their kind, humankind. If they try to step outside that boundary, outside their kind, they cannot reproduce with any other living thing. There is no exception to this rule.

What Breeding Experiments Show

In breeding experiments scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely. They wanted to see if in time they could develop new forms of life. With what result? The English medical publication On Call reports:

“In breeding procedures, breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed which is infertile with its ancestral form, and fertile with other individuals of the same species. Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support Evolution.”

In his own extensive research on this matter, lawyer Norman Macbeth reached that same conclusion. He said:

“Although the subject is seldom discussed [by evolutionists], my view is shared by reputable scientists. Thus [Loren] Eiseley says: ‘It would appear that careful domestic breeding, whatever it may do to improve the quality of race horses or cabbages, is not actually in itself the road to the endless biological deviation which is evolution. There is great irony in this situation, for more than almost any other single factor, domestic breeding has been used as an argument for the reality of evolution’ . . .

“Professor [Edward] Deevey supplies terse phrases such as ‘the species barrier’ . . . then confesses bankruptcy: ‘Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such as the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs.’”

Thus, basic kinds of living things are found to be remarkably stable. The most intensive breeding experiments cannot push them beyond a certain point. When they go too far, they reach the boundary of sterility. An example of this is the mule, produced by mating a donkey and a horse. But the mule has evidently reached the outer limit of the horse kind, for the mule is ordinarily sterile.

So while experiments, and observations of what goes on in the natural state, show great variety and adaptability within basic kinds, plants or animals never change so much that they begin transforming into something else.

That is not what you would expect if evolution were true. However, it is precisely what you would expect if the Bible is true, if living things were created and reproduce only “according to their kinds.”

Evolutionist Isaac Asimov admits that this is what the facts show, saying:

“Life comes only from life in the case of every animal man herds and of every plant man cultivates. . . .

“To be more exact, we should say that life comes only from similar life. . . . Each has young like itself; each was born of parents like itself; each comes from a long line (extended indefinitely backward in time) of creatures just like itself.”

What of humankind? The same thing is true, as the testimony of all recorded history shows. In Statement on Race, Ashley Montague says:

“Scientists have reached general agreement in recognizing that mankind is one: that all men belong to the same species, . . . It is further generally agreed among scientists that all men are probably derived from the same common stock. . . .

“St. Paul’s dictum that ‘God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth’ is in perfect accord with the findings of science.”

Professor Moore also says: “There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any change of one animal form into another animal form; or for that matter, any change of one plant form into another plant form . . . The only evidence of change that can be classed properly as the result of sound scientific method is the evidence of genetic variation WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of animals, or WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of plants.”

What the Fossil Record Reveals

Also of interest is Moore’s observation regarding plants and animals that have lived in the past, but that have since died. He says:

“There is absolutely no . . . evidence in the prime historical source, the fossil record, for any actual connection in sequence of these kinds. No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/​or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”

That is the evidence after more than a century of digging. The record remains precisely the same as when, over a century ago, Darwin exclaimed: “As by this [evolution] theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

He passed off the difficulty by stating that the fossil record was at fault. But after more than a century of intensive digging, that excuse can no longer validly be used. The fossil record is complete enough to show the same thing that the living record does​—a living thing reproduces only “according to its kind.” It is not found to be changing from one kind into another.

Furthermore, Darwin said that if it could be shown that groups of living things “have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” What does the evidence show? Professor Moore reports:

“In the 1967 publication, The Fossil Record, . . . jointly sponsored by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England . . . some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . .

“A conclusive generalization drawn from these charts is as follows: Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds!!!

“Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor. . . .

“And proponents of the General Theory of Evolution, who are familiar with the facts of paleontology, admit existence of gaps between all higher categories. They admit that this is an undeniable fact of the fossil record.”

This is indeed admitted by evolutionists. For instance, in Processes of Organic Evolution, G. L. Stebbins says of the fossil evidence regarding the origin and evolution of major groups of living things: “Evolutionists are impressed above all with the imperfection of the fossil record for this purpose.” He speaks of “profound gaps” and the “incompleteness and biased [prejudiced!] nature of the fossil record.”

Yet, he also says: “The record of past forms of life [in fossil form] is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness.” So there is a sufficient amount of fossils to draw conclusions. But nowhere are there to be found the transitional forms that should have existed if one group transformed into another by evolution.

This is acknowledged to be the case with smaller life forms as well, for Asimov admits: “Primitive though a unicellular [one-celled] creature seems in comparison to a man, or even to an oyster, it must itself be the end product of a long line of evolution, of which no trace has been left.” And he says of higher forms: “Perhaps both chordates and echinoderms branched off from a common ancestor of which we have no record.” [Italics ours]

Thus, we can understand why Stebbins laments: “The fossil record is exactly the wrong kind for evolutionists who wish to learn how the major groups of organisms originated.”

And admits evolutionist Edmund Samuel, Associate Professor of Biology, Antioch College, Ohio: “The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life in space and time. . . . This is because the data must be used circumstantially and no fine analysis . . . of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”​—Order: In Life (1972), p. 120.

Hence, from the record of living things, and from the fossil record, what would you honestly conclude? Do the facts support a gradual evolution of one kind of living thing into another? Or do they instead support the Bible’s view that God created different kinds of living things and that they multiply only “according to their kinds”?

What About Those “Ape-Men”?

YET, what of the reports over the years that fossil remains of apelike men have been discovered? Are they not proof of transitions between apes and men?

If this were so, then why is the “inferior” ape family still in existence today, but not a single one of the “ape-men” types, who were supposedly superior? Should not at least one of those higher types have survived the lesser apes? But today we see chimpanzees, baboons, orangutans, gorillas and even monkeys in abundance, but no superior “ape-men.”

From the viewpoint of evolution, it is strange that every one of the “links” between the apes and modern man should have been wiped out, but not the lower apes. However, it is not at all strange if we look at the record from the Bible’s viewpoint. The Bible shows the simple reason why no links exist today: they have never existed.

Gigantic Gap

It is undeniable that among living things today we observe a gigantic gap between the human kind and any animal. In Populations, Species and Evolution, Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, an evolutionist, states:

“No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”

Man’s uniqueness cannot be explained by evolution, for that process should certainly have resulted in at least a few other living things having qualities somewhat like humans. But that is not the case. Of all creatures on earth, only humans are capable of abstract reasoning, using complex languages, accumulating and building on knowledge and transmitting the improvement to their children. Only humans invent and improve on tools. Only they appreciate beauty, compose music and paint pictures.

In addition, in contrast with animals, only humans have an inborn moral sense. True, they can distort it or even work against it, but they still have the faculty of conscience. That is why in all human societies, even godless ones, there are laws protecting morals, human life, property and other rights. But nowhere do we see such conscience at work among the animals.

Yes, it is generally admitted that this gigantic gap between mankind and animals does exist today. But was it always that way? What about those “ape-men” who were supposed to have lived in the past?

Fossil “Ape-Men”

From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books, and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?

Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.”

In spite of this scarcity of fossil evidence for evolution, evolutionists in recent years had generally agreed on a line of ascent from ape to man. A vital link in their chain was the creature called Australopithecus, fossils of which were found in Africa. It had a small brain case, heavy jawbone, and was pictured as stooped over and apish looking.

Evolutionist Ruth Moore stated of it: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” She said emphatically: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.” In 1971 the New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”

Evolutionist Stebbins also said: “The immediate ancestors of Homo [man] were the australopithecines.” Most scientists in the field of evolution agreed. As the Los Angeles Times noted in 1972: “Current evolutionary theory holds that Homo sapiens​—modern man—​evolved within the past million years from Australopithecus, a fossil with physical characteristics of both ape and man.”

But because there may be a similarity in bone structure between an apish creature and modern man, does that mean they are related? It is very much like a person today examining the bones of a chimpanzee and then of a human, both of whom had died recently, and then concluding that one came directly from the other. He could claim that, but it would simply not be true.

A Shaken Theory

But any theory that is based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence, or shallow reasoning, sooner or later comes to nothing. This has already often proved to be the case with many past examples of supposed “ape-men.” So, too, it may now be with Australopithecus, only a few years after it has been dogmatically asserted that he was the most vital missing link of all.

Late in 1972, Richard Leakey and his team found in Africa a skull and leg bones of a creature that is said to have lived at the same time as Australopithecus. But it is claimed to have human characteristics!

Regarding the new find, the East African Standard of Nairobi, Kenya, reported:

“Not only the size and shape of the brain of this new find, but also the limb bones found in the archaeological sites now being searched by the experts at East Rudolf are remarkably like those of modern man.

“And it is these discoveries that have thrown new light on the theory of human evolution which will require a complete reappraisal end modification of the interpretation of previously known examples of early man.”

As a result of this find, Leakey told newsmen that Australopithecus “can be excluded from our line of ancestry.” And the New York Daily News reported: “[Leakey] said that the discovery would make it necessary to abandon the theory of man’s evolution that is now commonly accepted.” The conclusion was: “Homo sapiens [man] did not evolve from Australopithecus.”

How Brutish?

However, regardless of what very ancient fossils are placed in man’s ancestry, are they not apish, brutish and stupid looking? Does this not indicate an evolution from an apelike ancestor?

True, that is how they are pictured. But what is the basis for this? In The Biology of Race we are told: “The assumption of the brutishness and low morality of different people has been clearly shown in the attempts made by paleontologists to reconstruct fossil men.” Then it states: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.”

So the brutish appearance given early men is based not on facts, but on the assumption that they must have looked as if they came from the apes. The apish reconstruction admittedly results solely from the imagination, the fantasy of scientists who are determined to uphold the evolution theory even if it means deceiving the general public.

The truth is that it is impossible to determine by the skull or other bones what a person looked like. This is the case if the skeleton of a man is only four years old, or four thousand years old. The eyes, ears, nose, lips, skin, hair​—indeed all outward features—​are not preserved in old fossils.

That is why the above-quoted publication admits that regarding such outward features “we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.” In view of this, how honest would you say such brutish reconstructions are?

However, because of recent evidence showing that many early humans had a relatively high type of culture, some changes in viewpoint are now taking place. As The Biology of Race states: “More recently the restorers have begun to show a tendency to upgrade the earlier forms of man.” And the New York Times reported:

“It now appears that the men who lived in limestone caves scattered across Europe, from 32,000 B.C. until some 10,000 years ago were innately much like ourselves. In fact, some anthropologists argue that they were taller than modern man and possessed larger brains.”

Thus, a truthful look at the record tells us this: the huge chasm between man and beast that is so obvious today has always existed in the past. Any attempt to put apish creatures in man’s line is a myth. As New Scientist said, there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”

The truth is what the facts show, that God created man separate and distinct from the animals, and that man reproduces only after his kind. He does so today, and has always done so in the past. Any apish creature that lived in the past belonged to the ape kind, not human kind. Fossils of true men were simply varieties of the human kind, just as today we have many varieties or races of people living side by side.

From what we have seen, the latest scientific findings definitely do not support the evolution teaching. It has not met the challenge raised by contemporary scientific findings, because it is not true.

But there is more to the challenge that faces evolution. For example, deserving of careful attention is evolution’s effect on the world’s moral climate. Also, what hope does evolution offer for the future?

The answers involve you.

Which Do You Believe: Evolution or the Bible?

THE question “Which do you believe: evolution or the Bible?” is by no means merely an academic one. The answer has far-reaching implications.

If evolution is right, then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible, which teaches ‘You must not lie,’ is itself guilty of lying in regard to man’s origin, why should what it says about other matters be respected? Why believe that ‘you must not steal’ and that ‘you must not commit adultery’? Why believe its promises for life in a new order of righteousness? Why believe its explanation about man’s present condition?

On the other hand, if the Bible is right about man’s origin, then evolution is wrong. There is then basis for considering the Bible’s statements trustworthy.

Could Both Be Right?

Could not both evolution and the Bible be correct? Could not the Bible simply be telling us that God made man, but evolution was the means he used?

That is sometimes taught by clergymen. An Associated Press dispatch from Mobile, Alabama, in April 1969, said: “The 109th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States has concluded that the Bible and the theory of evolution are not contradictory.” The Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) notes: “The reconciliation of scientific origins and the religious teachings of Genesis [are] possible.”

But is it really possible that both evolution and the Bible’s account of creation can be freely interchanged; that one explains the other? No! Why do we say so?

We have seen in previous articles that the Bible teaches that man is a separate creation of God. Like the animal and plant creations, man reproduces only ‘after his kind.’ Evolution says that man proceeds from a lower “kind,” from animal kind. Both views cannot be right.​—Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25.

We have also found that the Bible teaches that Adam, the first man, was created by God about 6,000 years ago. The genealogy from Adam to Jesus Christ is clearly noted in the Scriptural record. (Gen. 5:1-32; 1 Chron. 1:1-27; Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38) But evolution says that man appeared over one million years ago, and this after several million more years of evolving. One teaching must be wrong.

Further, the Bible, which Christendom’s clergymen claim to uphold, clearly teaches that the perfect man Jesus Christ came to each as a “corresponding ransom” for what the perfect man Adam lost by his sin. (Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:5, 6) If man does not inherit sin from Adam, as the Bible teaches, the sacrifice of Jesus is nullified and Christians “are of all men most to be pitied.” (1 Cor. 15:19) No, a person cannot accept both. Only one, evolution or the Bible, is correct. The other is wrong.

Accept the Challenge Before You

A challenge therefore faces all truth-loving people. They must examine the evidence and decide for themselves to accept evolution or the Bible. No person should be allowed to make this decision for another.

Some persons, for instance, accept evolution because many churches now officially or unofficially believe it. But why, it might be asked, would churchmen, like those quoted earlier, accept evolution?

Because it is popularly taught. This is but one more example of the churches’ trying to be on friendly terms with the world. Notes the Victoria (British Columbia) Daily News: “The church is part of its world . . . Too frequently and too long it has appeared as a man-made, man-driven institution.”

Understandably, a “man-made, man-driven institution” would latch onto that which is popular with influential men of the world, would it not? But why should you follow the example of those who compromise the teachings of the very book they claim to represent, the Bible?

Others are persuaded to believe in evolution because ‘scientists say it is true.’ But there are many highly regarded scientific people who do not accept the teaching of evolution. Scientists, like other people, are divided in their opinion on this subject. So, if you are to let scientists make your decision for you, which scientist should you ask?

Actually, letting anyone make such a choice for you is childish. The New English Bible states an eternal verity when it says: “Grown men . . . discriminate between good and evil.” (Heb. 5:14) Yes, a mature person will face up to this decision and act. But how can you make such a decision?

Carefully weigh the evidence that has been presented in this magazine. As you do so, draw on your own experience. Compare the statements by believers in the Bible and by believers in evolution with what you have actually experienced in life. You must not be asked to believe the unbelievable.

As an illustration, if a famous cathedral was built several centuries ago, you were not around personally to witness its construction. But suppose someone told you it came into existence by itself​—would you believe that? Obviously not. Such a statement would run counter to everything you have personally observed in life.

So, too, with the ‘construction’ of man. We were not around when man first appeared. If evolutionists ask you to believe that man came into existence without a Maker, does that seem consistent to you? We know that everything made has a maker; experience has taught all of us that.

Further, we know that challenging problems face mankind today. Which will best assist persons to meet these problems​—belief in evolution or belief in the Bible? Knowing that can aid us to know which one we should believe.

Can Evolution Meet the Real Challenges of the Day?

MAN has never faced greater challenges than those before him at this time. Says the former British editor Malcolm Muggeridge: “The whole Western civilization [is] coming to an end . . . The whole Western civilization is on its last legs. I see a breakdown coming. It’s happening now.”

Challenging problems like crime, sickness and poverty stare daringly, not just at “Western civilization,” but at all mankind. Will a belief in evolution aid men to meet these challenges? Will it aid you in your personal life?

It would be expected to do so. We say that because evolution is an integral part of virtually every endeavor of mankind. So its influence is extremely broad. Notes the work The Wonders of Life on Earth:

“Darwin’s most influential work was his theory of evolution. It revolutionized the science of botany, biology and medicine. It brought new ideas into the study of religion and astronomy, of history and psychology . . . [Those ideas] which Darwin perceived have affected every branch of science.”

But is evolution’s guidance leading men out of their morass of challenging problems? Or have the evolution-backing sciences misdirected man’s efforts? Consider an example:

Where has much scientific attention been directed in recent years? The space program. Why? A number of reasons are often cited, but Science magazine observes candidly:

“The search for carbon-containing material on the lunar surface is not only a component part of the study of the origin and history of the moon, but an important step in our understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution leading to the origin of life.”

Yes, one of the main reasons billions of dollars have been spent, it is indirectly admitted, is to prove true the evolution theory. But no evidence of evolving life has been found outside the earth.

Consider how that same money could have been spent. Says Hans Gaffron of Florida State University:

“Other choices for spending all these billions would have been to eliminate most pockets of poverty in this country . . . A program for a balanced population could have been vigorously put forward, and the age of ruthless power politics and unimaginably stupid wars would thereby have been brought nearer its end for the benefit of all the people.”

Further, with men concentrating their attention, not on “unimaginably stupid wars,” but on problems of health and disease, would not these, at least, have been reduced? A former director of America’s Center for Disease Control asserts that “two or three years of reasonable stability in international relations could bring the eradication of smallpox on this planet.” Even if such a prediction is exaggerated, it emphasizes that man’s resources, spent to search space for evidence of evolution, could have been used more wisely.

Another big challenge facing the world today is, not scientific, but moral in nature. British historian Arnold Toynbee notes: “It is tragic to think that we have been so successful in the technological field, whereas our record of moral failures is almost immeasurable.” Evolution has actually contributed to this problem.

One example is found in the field of child training. Many experts in the subject have advised against disciplining children. Their theory is evolution-backed. Says the book Pre-School Education Today when questioning this common view:

“Thus, whenever little Johnny does something ‘bad,’ the behavior [is] explained by noting that it is just a stage he is going through. Moreover, following [one evolutionist’s] parable of the tadpole’s tail​—in which the hind legs fail to develop if the tail is amputated—​Johnny’s unwanted behavior must not be hampered, else some desirable future characteristic will fail to appear.

But what has been the result of passively accepting “Johnny’s unwanted behavior” as just a “stage” he is going through? In 1971 the number of juvenile arrests in the United States increased more than 50 percent over its 1966 figure. Australia reports that crimes of violence by youths living in the state of Victoria rose over 187 percent since 1960; the youth population increased only 29.6 percent in the same period. The evolution-tarnished child-raising theories have not yielded good moral fruitage.

Of course, evolution has contributed to this moral breakdown in other ways: It has discouraged faith in God and the Bible. In turn, many persons have abandoned the Biblical moral code forbidding adultery and stealing. But is that not to be expected? For, according to evolutionary teaching, is not man really an animal? Why should he not be expected to behave accordingly?

That would be a logical conclusion. But evolutionists object, saying, ‘No! Man is more than an animal.’ Prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson observes: “He has essential attributes other than those of animals . . . The essence of his unique nature lies precisely in those characteristics that are not shared with any other animal . . . Man is a moral animal.”

What a baffling dilemma man’s moral nature presents to the evolutionist! He would say man has evolved from animals. Yet he would also say man has moral qualities animals do not have! Where did man get these “essential attributes”? They must come from somewhere. Confesses one noted evolutionist: “Man cannot be a moral Melchisedec ‘without descent.’”

In attempting to cope with this problem, several years ago Sir John Arthur Thomson, an evolutionist, admitted: “Too often, in the things pertaining to man, the evolutionist relapses into creationism, trying to make faculties out of nothing.” Evolutionists will ‘bend over backwards’ to avoid bringing God into the picture as the explanation for man’s moral nature. The author of African Genesis illustrates this when he speaks of “the keeper of the kinds”:

“Who is he? We do not know. Nor shall we ever. He is a presence, and that is all . . . His presence is asserted in all things that ever were, and in all things that will ever be. And as his command is unanswerable, his identify is unknowable. But his most ancient concern is with order.”

Have not “keeper of the kinds” and similar vague expressions simply become substitutes for “God”? In refusing to acknowledge the Almighty’s hand in man’s physical and moral makeup the evolutionist has deified his own theory. But this evolutionary god, as we have seen, is a disappointing one.

Evolution has not successfully addressed itself to the real challenges of the day​—social, technical or moral. In some cases, it has created or aggravated already existing problems. But what about the Bible​—will it successfully aid you to meet the real challenges of our day?

Does the Bible Answer Life’s Questions?

YES, the Bible does answer life’s questions and assists in meeting its challenges. How?

By first of all explaining the source of life to us. Says the psalmist: “O Jehovah . . . with you is the source of life.” (Ps. 36:5, 9) Jehovah God gives life. The person who believes the Bible is not left with the evolutionists’ dilemmas. Nor does he have to argue that life always comes from a living source and then say that life originally came from nothing.

The believer in the Bible knows who is responsible for the harmony and abundant beauty found in the universe and on this earth. He knows that a good, loving God, Jehovah, made it that way.

Why Animals Prey

But some might object that the harmony and beauty are only imaginary and not real. For example, Bertrand Russell once said:

“I do not understand where this ‘beauty’ and ‘harmony’ are supposed to be found. Throughout the animal kingdom, animals ruthlessly prey upon each other.”

It is true that some animals eat other animals. But unlike men, animals do not kill for sport nor in large-scale wars. Animals usually kill for food. Not even hungry lions run wildly through the herds “ruthlessly” killing, but take only what they immediately need.

Also, it should be remembered that the assumed aggressive behavior on the part of animals is not as widespread as popularly claimed. Says a review of the book Geographical Ecology in Scientific American (July 1973):

“In the diversity of natural environments the species blend is rich. Competition for resource use must go before aggressive competition; surely there is no point to fighting unless some commonly useful resource is to be gained. For this main reason aggressive behavior . . . is ‘far from universal in the animal kingdom.’”

Ecologists speak of a ‘balance in nature.’ They are impressed with the overall cycle of life, its order and continuation. But this does not mean that everything about the cycle is beautiful.

For instance, few persons will question that a majestic lion presents a certain beauty. Yet his lair may emit offensive odors; the animal’s excrement is hardly ‘beautiful.’ When a lion strikes a zebra, this, too, we may not enjoy watching; but in this way the lion eats. Further, it serves to keep the number of zebras in check. If they were allowed to continue reproducing without any interference, they would die anyway, likely of starvation. Who would call that ‘beautiful’? Therefore, now, at this time, the lion’s killing the zebra is part of a necessary cycle.

But why do we say “at this time”?

Because that is what the Bible says. The first chapter of Genesis shows what God originally provided for animals as to food: “And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food.” (Gen. 1:30) Vegetation, not flesh, was what God purposed for animals to eat originally. Is it not logical that God would see that his own original purpose for animals is carried out?

In answer, consider what the Bible says in picturing a soon-to-come time in God’s new order:

“And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea.”​—Isa. 11:6-9.

While this may seem hard for many to understand, it is a fact that even today animals often thought to be enemies will dwell peacefully under certain circumstances. In the New York Times it was reported from Bonn, Germany, in 1968:

“A lioness lay down with lambs yesterday on a meadow near Mühldorf overlooking the Inn River, Bavarian police officials reported.

“The beast, a fugitive from a wandering circus, gamboled with the lambs, apparently delighting in leaping across their backs. Circus attendants let her rest with the lambs for a time before taking the lioness back to her cage.”

Not just the animals, but mankind too is ‘out of balance.’ The Bible shows that God made man and woman perfect and set them in a paradise garden of Eden. They themselves, however, sinned and brought death on the human race. For reasons of divine purpose he has temporarily allowed sin to exist.​—Genesis chapters 2 and 3; Deut. 32:4, 5.

Since Adam’s time man’s history has been largely a shambles of violence, of wars and crises. Men and nations have often been ‘animalistic’ in their behavior. By following Christian principles, however, some persons who formerly were that way have made radical changes in their lives after studying the Bible. If God, through his written Word, can do that for ‘beastly’ men, certainly in his new order he can restore the balance that originally existed among the animals.​—Jas. 3:15, 16.

This point leads us directly to another benefit that belief in the Bible brings.

Bible Believer Has Guidance

Knowing that a good God is the Source of life, the Bible believer can look to him for moral guidance in life. The very existence of man’s moral nature is explained in the Scriptures.

The creation account shows that man was made in the ‘image and likeness of God.’ (Gen. 1:26, 27) This obviously does not mean that man shares God’s physical likeness, for “God is a Spirit.” (John 4:24) Rather, he has moral traits or personality characteristics like those of his heavenly Maker, such as love and wisdom.​—Compare Colossians 3:9, 10.

The Bible provides believers the finest moral standard by which to live. Man’s Creator tells him to avoid such things as fornication, adultery and homosexuality. (Heb. 13:4; Rom. 13:9, 10; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10) This is for man’s well-being. Those persons who reject belief in the Bible have often suffered the frustration, disease and insecurity that result.​—Rom. 1:20-32.

Why the Worsening World Conditions?

Only the Bible, too, shows why man’s condition is steadily worsening. Said Bertrand Russell: “Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and predetermined march toward ever greater disaster.”

According to evolution, mankind should be improving. Why, instead, has there been a buildup of deadly nuclear arms that could wipe out the whole race? Along with this has come ever-worsening money, moral, food, racial, labor and social problems. Why?

The Bible answers: It shows that not just sin but an invisible wicked person, called in the Bible Satan the Devil, has aggravated man’s imperfect, greedy condition. Thoughtful persons do not scoff at the idea of the Devil. A good God is invisible. Why can there not be an invisible wicked person, a Devil? His presence is indicated by the consistently bad pattern man’s history has shown in spite of the desire of most humans to live relatively calm and peaceful lives.

But why are conditions so very bad now? The Bible shows that we today live in the “last days.” Read what Jesus and his first-century followers predicted for this time in Matthew 24 and 25; Mark 13; Luke 21; 2 Timothy 3; Revelation 6 and 11. The terrible conditions on earth since 1914 fulfill those prophecies.

In the year 1914 Jesus Christ started to rule, invisibly, over the “kingdom of the world.” Among his first acts was to cleanse the heavens of Satan’s presence, with the result: “Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.”​—Rev. 11:15; 12:9-12.

So the Bible alone gives solid answers to the questions and challenges before men. It alone explains the Source of life. It gives believers the highest moral standard by which to live. It tells why wickedness exists and is worsening. The accuracy of the Bible in foretelling our current crisis assures us that what it says about the near future will also positively come true.

But what does it say regarding the future? What about those who cling to the evolution theory?

Who Will Face Up to the Challenge?

EVER since Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859 the clergy have supported the evolution theory.

In crisp contrast with the clergy of Christendom, however, Jehovah’s witnesses have consistently put their trust, not in evolution, but in the Bible. Volume One of Studies in the Scriptures (1886), by the first president of the Watch Tower Society, said the theory of evolution is “as contrary to human reason as to the Bible.” Since that time numerous Watch Tower Society publications have supported the Bible in the evolution issue. The unequivocal stand that Jehovah’s witnesses have taken in this respect is well known.

Thus, Norman Macbeth, in his Darwin Retried, also points to the Witnesses as defending the Bible in the evolution challenge: “Jehovah’s Witnesses have learned a good deal of biology. The issue of Awake! for 22 April 1967 was pressed upon me one day and I was amazed to find that it contained some shrewd criticism of Darwinism . . . Thus it is no longer correct for Simpson to say: ‘ . . . those who do not believe in it [evolution] are, almost to a man, obviously ignorant of the scientific evidence.’”

Jehovah’s witnesses have faced up to the challenge evolution has tried to present and made it clear to the world that they believe the Bible. They know that to accept even part of the evolution theory is to reject what the Bible says. As discerning Christians they will not be seduced into believing any evolutionary philosophy. The words of Paul are appropriate: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”​—Col. 2:8.

But what about you? Will you be led along with the common evolution teaching of the day? We live in serious times. In the past God has not endlessly tolerated those who hypocritically claimed to worship him. He took action to clear his Word. (See, for instance, Ezekiel 8:10-12; 9:1.) Today the clergy of Christendom have tried to shove God’s Word out of the picture and endorse such teachings as evolution in its place. But God will again stand behind his Word; he does not change. What will he do?

Soon he will bring what the Bible calls a “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.” (Matt. 24:21) All persons and organizations that support falsehood, including teachings such as evolution, will be eradicated. In fact, this entire corrupt system as well as the Devil himself will be put out of operation.​—Dan. 2:44; Rev. 19:19–20:3.

With the removal of this wicked system of things the way will be cleared for a new system of things. God’s original purpose stated in the garden of Eden will be carried out. He will show that what he originally stated in his Word regarding the earth’s being like a paradise will be accomplished. The Bible says that God will “wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” Even the dead will arise, just as Jesus Christ assured us.​—Rev. 21:4; John 5:28, 29.

Does that prospect not appeal to you? Consider how it compares with what evolution offers. Evolution falls before scientific fact. It gives no reliable explanation of man’s past and no hope whatsoever for the future. For this reason, it has actually contributed to man’s moral problems, not aided him to overcome them. Evolution has not aided men to meet the challenge before the whole race.

On the other hand, the Bible has. Science cannot disprove what the Bible says about man’s past. The Bible gives men a sure hope for the future and encourages them to become godlike in personality, manifesting qualities such as love, goodness and self-control.

Which has the genuine ring of truth​—evolution or the Bible? Only the truth will survive the coming world destruction.

Of course, we do not expect you to accept all that we have said herein without further examination. But what we do encourage is that you accept the challenge before you personally in this respect. Make an examination now; time is running out.

Learn what the Bible really says about man and his Maker. Jehovah’s witnesses, who alone truly advocate the Bible, will be happy to assist you at your convenience and at no charge. We urge you to accept their offer to be of help.

[Picture on page 29]

Evolution cannot explain man’s past. It offers no hope for the future. Only the Bible explains man’s past and offers a genuine hope for the future​—everlasting life on a paradise earth

Watching the World

Inflation’s Fruitage

◆ U.S. wholesale farm products rose a record 23 percent in August, and, according to the Labor Department, the nation’s overall inflation rate nears the worst in the century. Inflation has brought a host of other problems, including a sharp increase in shoplifting and employee theft. The Wall Street Journal reports that there is more “shoplifting by the elderly whose fixed incomes can’t keep pace with food prices.” Others have taken to switching price labels from low- to high-priced goods. “Some people feel tag switching is less dishonest [than shoplifting],” says a department store security manager. “They think they’re just getting a good deal.”

New Evolution Quandary

◆ Scientific evidence, says Time magazine, is causing “uneasiness among scientists over current explanations about how life arose spontaneously on earth.” Also, recent discoveries in Africa “challenge the validity of long-cherished theories concerning the origin and evolution of the human race,” says an article in Tuesday magazine. One was the finding of bones in Kenya that anthropologists allege are “more than twice as old, and are far more modern in shape than those of our presumed ancestor.” Concerning another similar find, it continues: “Equally disconcerting are the artifacts found with the fossils.” These indicated a high degree of civilization, including mining, tool manufacturing, record keeping and a well-developed language.

“Pestilence” Still Plaguing Man

◆ By early September 800 cases of cholera were reported in Italy; over 20 persons had died. Tainted mussel beds near the Naples sewage discharge were blamed as the main source of the outbreak. These have been destroyed. Lemons were $2.50 a pound and alcoholic beverages were selling by the crate, because they were thought to have value in resisting the disease. In perspective, during the past two years, 20,000 of the 80,000 cases of cholera in Africa are reported by the World Health Organization to have been fatal, with many more unreported. A cholera patient may lose as much as a quart of body fluid an hour by diarrhea before dying of dehydration.

Disaster in Mexico

◆ Natural forces again demonstrated man’s smallness. In Mexico the most devastating floods in 30 years struck the flatlands and areas in the south and southeast, causing great material loss. Then, on August 28, an earthquake of such magnitude that it dislocated the seismographs near the epicenter, shook an area of 28,000 square kilometers (10,811 square miles). The quake’s duration, about six minutes, was the longest on Mexican record. In Puebla State, buildings and homes collapsed. At least 500 persons died and 4,000 were injured.

Competition’s Ravages

◆ Papua-New Guineans were recently asked by the Chief Minister “not to take the competition into the streets,” after Papua defeated New Guinea in a rugby game. “Hordes of dissatisfied spectators stormed from the grounds and expressed their resentment by running, shouting and hurling soft-drink bottles,” reports the Papua New Guinea Post-Courier. Angry mobs “took out their frustration . . . on shop fronts, passing vehicles and pedestrians.” Calling for a ban on future games between the two teams, the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Guise, says: “Such games . . . have the reputation of always resulting in brawls, often flare up emotional feelings.”

Tobacco Setbacks

◆ The state of Arizona passed a bill banning public smoking in elevators, indoor theaters, libraries, art museums, concert halls and buses, except in designated areas. While puffing a cigarette, a state senator, who denounced the bill as “an invasion of privacy,” died of a heart attack a month later at age 67. The U.S. Congress also passed a bill in September that bars TV and radio ads for “little cigars,” which had been circumventing the ban on cigarette advertising.

Misgivings About Transfusions

◆ Medical and government authorities increasingly attack the high cost and indiscriminate use of blood. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) says: “Blood is expensive, in part, because charges are imposed which bear no discernible relationship to costs.” A blood-bank medical director, writing in Medical Economics magazine, fears that when reporters, consumers and insurance companies “start asking questions about why blood may cost as much as $75 a unit, and when lawyers start thinking about serum hepatitis as something other than an act of God, then there’s going to be pandemonium.” He says there “is a reckless reliance on blood transfusions . . . without careful consideration of safer, less expensive alternatives.”

Driving to Death

◆ “Sometime in 1974 the nation will pass the bloody milestone of two million vehicle-traffic deaths since the advent of the motor car,” says a U.S. congressional subcommittee. Highway deaths soon will be double those American dead in all wars since the Revolution. The fact that about three fourths fail to use seat belts contributes to the high rate. But, according to the subcommittee’s six-year study, there are other factors: “Even some of the nation’s newest interstate highways . . . have been designed and built without applying basic research knowledge and engineering principles and, in some cases, old-fashioned common sense.”

Why Bother?

◆ What has long been suspected as the reason some people go to church no longer exists for many of them, so they do not bother to go. ‘No social pressure from their neighbors to attend’ is why nearly half of those surveyed in a San Antonio, Texas, suburb stopped going. “A lack of genuine faith in Christianity was the cause for drifting most often cited,” according to the San Antonio Express & News.

Britain’s Prisons

◆ London’s Daily Mail says that widespread disturbances made 1972 the most troubled year in the history of Britain’s prison system. One representative of the Prison Officers’ Association is quoted in the newspaper as claiming: “We are just a few steps from a total breakdown in the prison service, . . . We believe last year’s trouble was a rehearsal for things to come.” Outdated and overcrowded prisons, as well as recent changes in prisoner schedules, are said to contribute to the problem. Of prison officers, he says: “Our morale has never been worse.”

Can We Believe the Bible?

Can we trust what it says? Is it really the word of God?

It is vital that we know, for the Bible foretells an impending world destruction and offers the way of escape.

The 192-page book Is the Bible Really the Word of God? examines the Bible’s claim of divine authorship. Get your copy; only 25c.

Please send me the hardbound book Is the Bible Really the Word of God? I enclose 25c.

What Future for Religion?

From around the world come reports of the decline of religion. What does it mean?

Will the trend be reversed? Are the churches really on the way out?

Awake! keeps readers informed on what is happening. But, more importantly, it shows how God views matters. God, not man, will decide the future of religion and of all mankind.

Keep informed. Receive Awake! for one year. Only $1.50.

Please send Awake! magazine for one year; enclosed is $1.50. Send also three gift booklets on Bible themes.

[Picture on page 32]

Is the Church Dying?

Richmond Times-Dispatch

Public Apathy Creating Crisis in Church of England

The New York Times

Decline Of Religion

JOURNAL HERALD

Pope Declares Church Facing Self-Demolition

THE SUNDAY NEWS, DECEMBER 8, 1968

CATHOLIC CHURCH MOVES TOWARD BIGGEST CRISIS IN 400 YEARS

U.S. News & World Report