220
T h e K i n g ’ s B u s i n e s s
April 1928
But we are not left in doubt, nor to reasoning, as to the meaning o f these words used by Peter from the Scrip ture. Paul also uses the same statement from the 16th Psalm, and he uses it distinctively as the Scripture proof o f the resurrection- of Jesus; and moreover, he uses it in such a way as to leave no doubt as to what the resurrection was. It is found in Acts 13 :34, 35:— -“.As concerning that H e raised Him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore He saith also in an other Psalm, Thou shalt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption.” Now notice:— The part of this passage which Paul quotes as evidence o f the‘resurrection of Jesus is that part which says He should not see corruption. And
lest there should be any doubt as to which part o f Him was meant, Peter says distinctly that it was His FLESH which did not see corruption. O f course the Omniscient Holy Spirit foresaw these attacks of the enemy and made every point invulnerable. Our Saviour was raised from the dead. His dead body was raised into an immortal and an incorruptible body. And so it is to be with us. Paul says that we are to undergo a change. He does not say that we are to exchange one body for another; but that our bodies are to undergo the change from mortal to immortal and from corruptible to incorruptible; moreover he says that this change will take place in not only the dead but the living also.
'4& 4& M
The Basic Fallacy of Evolution B y D udley J oseph W hitney Exeter, Calif.
N careful inspection every leading argument in favor o f genuine evolution will be found to be based upon a fallacy, that is to say, upon a mis interpretation o f facts, or upon poor reasoning otherwise, but there is one fallacy which lies close to the heart of the whole theory and of every part of it. It is the theory that relationship is shown by resemblances, in other words that when two plants, or two animals,' resemble one another in certain important features, they are related, which is to say, descended from the same remote ancestors. If one stops to consider the subject closely he will find that a very strong case apparently can be made out for evolution on the basis o f such resemblances. All rats of every description are doubtless descended from the same original rat species. Few people will deny that. But when we see how closely mice resemble rats it is hard not to believe that rats and mice were united some time in the distant past, and that somewhere, sometime, gophers also split off from that same parent stock, also other Uodents, like squirrels, guinea pigs and even rabbits. Rodent char acteristics are so strong and steps can be taken so readily from one species to another that a belief in common descent can hardly stop short of making the whole group related by descent from the same remote group o f ances tors. But if one goes that far he has no occasion to stop. Other mammals are joined in corresponding groupings of species, and mammals have so many similar features, in which they differ from reptiles, birds and other verte brates, that the theorist decides that all mammals came from some original group of mammal ancestors. Thus he puts together mammals in one group, birds in another, reptiles in a third, amphibians and fishes in a fourth and fifth, and so on until he has included the whole animal kingdom in common descent. Then he finds that he can combine plants in similar groups, and befdire he finishes he decides upon genuine complete"'evolution, and has all animals and all plants descended from some simple one- celled organism, which was little more than a tiny mass of jelly-like material. The process of reasoning is based upon the principle that resemblances indicate relationship.
Some surprising features exist in this line o f compar ison. Dr. H. F. Osborn takes the African shrew as fairly typical o f the assumed mammal ancestor of whales, bats, men, and all other mammals (that is, warm-blooded, milk giving animals). He points out the fact that if thé skel eton o f that African tree shrew were put side by side with the skeleton o f a whale and magnified until it was the same size, and also altered somewhat in proportion, the skeletons would be almost alike, bone for bone. The two animals are also alike in heart,, lungs, reproductive system, milk giving and other ways. Instead of using the whale for comparison he. could use bats, monkeys or elephants with practically the same results. T heory C an ’ t S tand I nspection - There is no denying the fact that an extremely strong case can be made out for evolution when conditions like these are recognized and when they seem to be corrobor ated by the fossil record, embryology, and very numerous odds and ends o f ways. And yet, as I said, thé theory cannot stand careful inspection. The principle o f comparison used in reaching the con clusions suggested above is that resemblances indicate relationship. For example, mice resemble rats and rats resemble squirrels, therefore rats, mice and squirrels are all related ( ?). Let us see if it is a good argument. We find it is not. We find resemblances o f the most important nature without the slightest particle o f relation ship on that account and it would therefore be very illog ical and very unfair for the biologist, or evolutionist, to say that one indicated, or proved, relationship, but that thé other had to be ignored. A thing like that would be the old saying, “ Heads I win; tails you lose.” Now let us see. The bat looks like a mouse with wings. It is as close a counterpart o f the ancient flying reptiles as could possibly be imagined, but no more rela tionship is asserted between the two than between the pterodactyl and the' elephant. The eel looks like a snake. In fact it is no more related to a snake than to a turtle. An extinct mammal resembled a turtle about as much as a mammal could, but it was no more related to a turtle than is a camel.
Made with FlippingBook Online document