589
K i n g ' s
October 1928
T h e
B u s i n e s s
blocked in explaining even how the change occurred which did occur. “ Evolution in the germ,” says Dr. H. F. Osborn, “ is the most incomprehensible phenomenon in the universe.” Possibly it is incomprehensible because of the unwillingness to admit that God can guide and overrule in the realm of nature, or perhaps the reason it is so incomprehensible is that there is no “ evolution in the germ,” but only relatively unimportant changes. B iological C hanges P rove N othing It is not hard to believe that some superb feline species degenerated until its descendants split up into lions, tigers, leopards, lynxes and house-cats. That is the kind of “ evolution” Genesis agrees with (if it can be called evo
D oes E mbryology P rove A n y t h in g ? Evolutionists believe that embryology demonstrates evolution. They assume that the form of the aorta in the early human embryo is an outgrowth of the gill slits of a fish, though it would be amazing if this could persist through the strength of heredity. Heredity would haye to stand aside and let. the fish change to amphibian, and so on, until fish had by degrees changed to man. They assume that an ancestor of the butterfly was worm because the caterpillar resembles a worm so much, but how a worm could sprout wings, unless by miracle, they cannot say. If they followed out their heredity scheme consistently, they would decide that the worm ancestor o f the house
fly lived on land, because that is where the maggot lives, but that the worm ancestor of the mosquito lived in th lution). But it is de cidedly “ incomprehensi ble” how s o m e non descript ancestor could build up features like those of lions, tigers and house-cats. Creation by an omnipotent Creator, followed by degeneracy of that creation- when the laws of nature are broken, is not incom prehensible. B u t t h e building up of eyes, legs, claws, hair, milk glands, and organs innumerable, simply by, natural pro cesses in a world where the great biological prin ciple is that like produces like, save where degen eracy occurs, is “ incom prehensible.” After all is said and done, biological change will not" turn an alga into an oak, nor an am- phioxus into a man un der any-, conditions (ex cept miracle). It cer tainly w ill 1 not do it when Darwinism fails as an agency for species change and when every other agency-.: that Evo lutionists can think of fails with it. It would not have done it if Dar winism and Lamarckism had worked for less than billions of y e a r s , and there have been no biP lions o f years for that changue , neither have RABBIT BAT MAN DOG FOUR WEEKS SIX WEEKS FOUR MONTHS DEVELOPMENT BEFORE BIRTH HERE YOU HAVE IT ¡ THE A.A.A.A. SENDS OUT THIS FAKE PICTURE TO PROVE EVOLUTION TO THE WORLD. ALL THE EVOLUTIONISTS SEEM TO NEED IS A CLEVER ARTIST. SEE WHAT MR. WHITNEY SAYS ABOUT EMBRYOLOGY. and d§cay, in all around, we see” ; the .plants .often have thorns and briars which previous to- the fall had them not. Change and decay continued from Adam to Noah; then the earth was ruined and overthrown and a new and far different earth was reconstructed, and from Noah to the present, there has been more change and decay. There undoubtedly HAS been species change. Genesis agrees with that perfectly. If Darwinism worked, Funda mentalists would not (need to object. It merely happens that it does not work and that the Evolutionists are there been millions of years for it, nor any series of geologic ages at all like those the Evolutionists demand. Even if there had been, the fossil record would show one creation after another as new kinds of species were re quired. It would not show evolution. The evolution that Evolutionists can demonstrate is the evidence of degeneration from an early perfect cre ation, not the upbuilding from simple ancestors. Cre ationists h a v e every r e a s o n for agreeing heartily with every biological law that biologists can discover.
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs