Specific Objections to Evolution

CHAPTER IV

Evolution undertakes to account for every part of every living organism, by progressive modifications caused by resident forces. Hence it is not an exaggeration to say that every organ and member of every living creature supplies us with an objection to Organic Evolution. Our difficulty, therefore, is not for lack of illustrations, but rather which to select from the number available. Several out of the many at our disposal will suffice to show how completely the theory breaks down, when we leave the realm of vague generalities and bring it to the test of concrete facts.

Before applying this test we should perhaps state that, according to the Darwinian theory, every organ was evolved from what was originally a very slight variation (due to accident or other cause unknown), which variation, because it proved useful to its possessor, was transmitted to its offspring; and it is supposed that the departure continued through many generations until at last it became an organ-such as an eye, an ear, a wing, with a distinct and valuable function. Thus "Natural Selection" attempts to account for the preservation of certain variations from the original stock, but not for their production. The main point of the doctrine is that only such accidental variations are preserved as are advantageous to their possessor. We cannot state the theory more definitely because its authors themselves are utterly unable to suggest how Natural Selection worked in any concrete case-as, for example, in evolving the wings of fowls and insects. Mr. Darwin says: "Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign

any reason why this or that part has varied.' Thus we are left, as Prof. Fairhurst says, "in almost total darkness as to the cause of the most important factor in Organic Evolution."

The evolutionist leaves us to think out for ourselves how the limitless number of diversities of organs, members, instincts, etc., in all the millions of living species, came into being. We see in all of them specific organs upon which their existence or welfare depends. Natural Selection tells us that, at a time far back in the past, their ancestors had none of those organs, not even those that are vital. But it does not, nor does it attempt to, trace the development of a single organ, or tell us what the intermediate creatures were like, or how they lived during the long stretches of years during which those vital organs were being evolved. The question is: How did many generations of species live without organs whose functions are vital? That is a hard question even for an evolutionist.

Here then we are in a position to state an objection to which, so far as we are aware, no reply has ever been made. It is this: Inasmuch as the evolution of an organ, such as the wing of a fowl, would require many centuries of time, and many generations from parent to offspring to bring it to a useful stage of development, how is it possible to account for its preservation during the long period when it was an undeveloped and useless appendage? Natural Selection purports to account for the preservation only of such variations as are useful to the possessor in "the struggle for existence. The facts of nature force that limitation upon the theory, inasmuch as the existing organs and members are such as are of some use or advantage. The theory cannot admit of the perpetuation of useless organs and structural features, for such do not exist. But, upon looking closely at the matter, we perceive that every organ-such as an arm, an eye,

an ear-however advantageous when fully developed, must have been preceded (if the theory be true) by an exceedingly long period during which it would have been not merely useless, but often a positive disadvantage. It follows that Natural Selection, by its own necessary limitations, cannot account for the development of any organ which must needs pass through a period of non-usefulness. Hence the theory breaks down completely.

The Wings Consider, for example, the wing of a of Fowls fowl (an illustration used most effectively by Prof. Luther T. Townsend, and quoted in Dr. Leander S. Keyser's Contending for the Faith). Here is a very highly organized structure, certainly most important to its possessor. It is a wonder of design, and the very perfection of workmanship in every detail, down to the tiniest feature of the smallest feather. Whether we regard the design, or the construction, or the material, we see perfection in each and all. But we find on the back of every bird not one wing, but two, practically identical in every feature. Moreover, they are symmetrically placed, and in the most advantageous position for the purpose for which, upon the theory of Creation, we should say they were intended. But, according to Evolution, those wings must have been developed each quite independently of the other, from what was at first an accidental hump or protuberance on the back of a featherless reptile. They must, moreover, have been perpetuated, with steadily progressive development, keeping pace with one another, through the progeny of countless generations, during all of which time, these unnatural excrescences would be, not an advantage, but decidedly an encumbrance to their possessors. But this could not go on under the "law" of Natural Selection; for that "law" tolerates only the fostering of useful variations. Hence Natural Selection would

quickly destroy such variations. But conversely the wings of the fowl destroy Natural Selection. Evolution cannot account for wings, either by Natural Selection or by any other supposed method of working. Many able evolutionists have admitted this (Herbert Spencer among them); yet they cling to Evolution, notwithstanding the impossibility of proposing a method by which it could work. Is it because they cannot bear the alternative of recognizing Creation and the Creator?

The Bat and the Mole

We would cite in this connection the instructive case of the bat, quoting from Prof. Th. Graebner: "The bat," says he, "is another highly specialized animal. "In many respects it resembles the mole; but its hands are enormously expanded, and the exceedingly long fingers are connected by a soft membrane, making a most serviceable wing. Is it not extremely likely, assuming the development theory to be true, that the mole and the bat sprang from a common ancestor? And was not that ancestor probably a wingless mammal? How then came the bat to acquire his wings? Did he attempt to spring into the air to seize a passing insect, reaching out his fore-paws to catch it? And did those paws gradually become enlarged until, after some generations, they became real wings? If so, what happened in the meantime to those connecting links whose wings were but partly developed? A bat with wings only half grown would be a helpless creature, and would surely perish. There is no middle ground. If the ancestor of the bat was a terrestrial creature, with limbs fitted for walking, then it must have given birth to a full-fledged bat, fitted for flying. There could have been no middle stage;

for such a creature would have been helpless and must have perished.

"All this applies with equal force to the diversified and often highly complex structure of plants. As the organs of the various plants are now constituted they serve most admirably their respective purposes. Given a slight change, an undevelopment, and the individual would perish. But such undeveloped stages must necessarily have occurred in the history of every life-form on earth, if a change through slow adaptations is to be accepted as an hypothesis to account for their present form. To our mind this matter of rudimentary structures presents an insuperable obstacle to acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis, even on scientific grounds.

We have thus far considered only the subject of wings, seeking to imagine how those wonderful organs, so vital to their possessors, could have been evolved. But manifestly whatever organ or member, external or internal, of whatever creature we might select, it would be equally impossible to trace any line of development for it, whether by Natural Selection or any other method of Evolution that has been proposed. It is obvious that humps, excrescences and other abnormalities, are blemishes; and the more they might be developed, short of acquiring a new function (as sight, hearing, flying) they would be a great disadvantage to their possessors. Such abnormalities, moreover, do not tend to reappear in offspring. On the contrary they tend to disappear. A whole race of men have practiced the rite of circumcision for nearly four thousand years, and at the same time have refrained from outside marriages; yet never was a child born already circumcised.

If, however, the perpetuation of such abnormalities were indeed the law of nature, then there would