LaVergne Church of Christ | The Other Side of Evolution (continued)

 

FRUITS AND TENDENCIES OF EVOLUTION

Typical of many evolutionists is this statement from The Meaning of Evolution, by G.G. Simpson:

"Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind."1

A more recent statement by the famed evolutionist, Julian Huxley, expresses the same sentiment:

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational thought. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."2

On the cover of Gamaliel Bradford's work, Darwin, is the statement:

"The life of a gentle, tolerant and lovable man, who overturned the would of thought, shifted the whole attitude of science, and upheaved the very foundation of religion and morality."3

And, again:

"He made hell a laughing stock and heaven a dream."4

Such statements reveal the true nature of modern evolutionary thinking.

Lying at the root of all evolutionary ideals is a basic anti-creation, anti-God attitude. It is principally a materialistic philosophy with nothing to offer but doubt and despair. Most evolutionists have an automatic barrier that reacts at the very mention of the alternative to their theory, namely, creationism.

That the theory of evolution is a negative and unproductive philosophy is show by the following.

1. Evolution Is Unbeneficial To Science.
Davis writes:

"If any-thing good has come out of the evolution theory, it is certainly difficult to detect it. And it is a self-evident truth, accepted by all thinking people, that a tree is known by its fruits."5

Dr. W.R. Thompson states:

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial."6

Thompson adds:

"The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."7

Research centered around the modern concept of the theory of evolution has contributed little, if anything, to scientific knowledge. One hundred fifty years of evolutionary probing has not produced anything significant so far as true science is concerned and there are some who feel that it has, in a number of instances, been detrimental to scientific progress.

2. Supporters Of Evolution Often Do Not Square With The Facts.
The theory, therefore, becomes a bias doctrine. In modern scientific circles it has become fashionable for evolutionists to say of others: "Why, you're not looking at both sides of the issue." Now this may sound impressive to the unaware, but when the truth is known it is the evolutionist who fails to look at both sides of the issue. When only favorable information is presented and when detrimental information is suppressed or neglected, obviously the scientific process is being cast aside.

Evolution, of course, is not a fact. It has not been proved. Even Darwin admitted that it was unproved and unprovable.8 But listen to the 20th century's leading exponent of evolution, Julian Huxley:

"Whether or not we like it, Darwin's theory is confirmed...thanks to Darwin we accept evolution as a fact."9

This illustrates how bias evolutionsts are in their defense of the theory. But in spite of such a statement (which has been echoed by many others) there are thousands of good scientists throughout the world who reject evolution. (The reader may want to again refer to "Evidence for Evolution Examined.")

3. Evolution, To A Large Degree, Grew Out Of Atheism And Has A Tendency To Promote Atheism.

Evolutionists make a fetish out of what they call academic freedom. To them it means the license to teach anything that they want to, even to the advocacy of those things which undermine the basic foundations of society.10

This seems to be the trend among many evolutionists - teach what you wish regardless of the consequences. And atheism, by way of deceptive evolution, is one of those things being subtly advocated. In a pamphlet entitled Evolution Implies Atheism, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, president Woosley Teller said:

"The God idea cannot be reconciled with our knowledge of evolution."11

Evolution stands in direct opposition to belief in God. This, of course, is admitted by all leading evolutionists. Real supporters of the theory are quite clear and adamant when discussing this, for they realize there can be no reconciliation between the two. And, indeed, there cannot!

4. The Doctrine Of Evolution Creates An Atmosphere Tending Toward Immorality.
When young people are led to believe that they are only the result of an evolutionary process, that they are nothing more than advanced creatures possessing no soul, and that there is no God to whom they will one day give account, what can be expected of their moral outlook? Some youth have said: "If we are no different than dogs or cats, why should we believe in moral rules?" Where does this idea originate? It is not self-taught and it does not likely come from the home. No doubt it is instilled through the subtle influence of evolution presented in the classroom and is a conclusion drawn from information found in science textbooks. This attitude is typical with a growing number of youth. As a result with many there is no shame in declaring, "I don't believe in God." Others feel no guilt when being sexually permissive. And yet others have no sense of remorse when becoming involved in violent acts.

Parents, educators, politicians and theologians are baffled when youth become so "animal-like" and are puzzled to find the cause. Then everything is blamed but the real criminal - godless evolution! When evolution is taught in the classroom and when youth are left with false, misleading impressions, what else can be expected but a down-ward spiral in their moral outlook?

5. Evolution Has Been Instrumental In Producing Corrupt Systems Of Society.
Communism is largely based on atheism and breeds in the atmosphere of atheism. However, few are aware that Karl Marx, designer of the communist philosophy, drew heavily on Darwin's concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Atheistic communism began with its roots grounded in evolution. As entomologist Geoffrey Taylor says:

"Darwin's Origin Of Species and Marx's Das Capital... heralded the two great secular faiths of modern times - Evolutionism and Communism. Let me say at once that I believe both these faiths to be wrong; that each enshrines not a truth, but an illusion. Also they are in my opinion to some extent connected and intertwined."12 (Note: Marx requested that his book be dedicated to Darwin.)

In connection with this Davis says:

"Since the adoption of the Marxian philosophy, Russia has consistently stressed the hatred of God and all forms of religion; Russia not only denies the existence of God, but makes atheism "a necessary premise of the system on which its government is formed."13

"If one understands something of how ideas take hold of individuals and nations, he cannot doubt the influence of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest upon the thinking ofNietzsche's philosophy, and he accepted the principle that the few who rule should not be bound by any kind of morality that would hold them down."14

Later, during the Nazi regime, leaders of Nazism capitalized on the concept of survival of the fittest and for several years systematcally bred men and women of the so-called "pure Aryan race" in an attempt to produce a "super-human race." The connection with evolutionary ideas is all too obvious.

When evolution is blindly accepted and forced upon people there is a tendency to do away with the individual. After all, if man is really nothing more than animal what place does the individual hold? Such a materialistic philosophy as evolution leads to a purposeless life. Man becomes just another cog in the wheel, an insignificant part of the human mass. This, of course, is but another way of describing state socialism, the backbone of communism.

The United States will never be made communistic by a frontal attack on her ideology, but there is a good chance of bringing it in by the back door of state socialism. As men fall more and more under the influence of the philosophies of evolution and atheism and as they turn away from belief in the Supreme Creator, they cannot help but head down the road of corrupt government.

These brief observations of the fruits and tendencies of evolution are but a beginning point. Who could truly measure the evil which has already resulted from this assumed theory? And who knows what added evil the future holds?

THEISTIC-EVOLUTION

Because of a growing liberal trend in theological circles and a failure to honestly examine the evidence, some professed Bible believers have attempted to reconcile belief in God and the Bible with evolution. Many have been conditioned to think that by rejecting evolution they would be looked on as antiquated and outside the educated circle.

Out of this effort to reconcile the two views has come the theistic-evolution position. Those holding this view feel they can believe both the Bible and evolution, hence, they endeavor to burn the candle at both ends. Here are some peculiarities of those who promote the theistic-evolution position.

First, since they claim to believe evolution, they see themselves as intellectual.
Second, since they profess to believe the Bible they see themselves as flexible.
Third, to keep from having to reject the Biblical account they are forced to make serious modifications in evolution.
Fourth, in order to align the Bible with the evolution theory they are forced to make serious modifications in the Biblical account. (It is a wonder why men will go so far out of their way to attempt to adjust the scriptures to a theory that is beyond proof!)

The "middle of the road" stance of theistic-evolution is looked on as meaningless and absurd by both evolutionists and creationists. It has no credible position for both sides from which it draws support reject it! Theistic-evolutionists declare that God created the first life and then used evolution to develop all other forms of life. However, if one can believe that God created the first life, why is it so difficult to believe that He could create all life whole and complete?

By its very nature the theistic-evolution view makes it necessary to stretch the days of the creation week into periods lasting millions of years. However, for the following reasons the Biblical record will not allow such a senseless interpretation.

First, each day is combined with a numeral - "first day...second day...third day..." In the Hebrew Old Testament whenever a number is used with the word "day" it is always a normal, twenty-four hour day. There are no exceptions to this!
Second, each day is qualified with the expression "morning and evening" which is a Jewish idiom for the night and day (or light and dark) portions of a normal day.
Third, in literature a word is always to be understood in its literal sense unless there is something in the context demanding otherwise. There is nothing in the context of Genesis one even suggesting a figurative meaning for the word "day." (The only reason men want to give a figurative meaning to the word "day" is because they have already rejected a literal rendering.)
Fourth, the Bible clearly puts all creation within the time frame of a normal week! In Exodus 20:11 Moses wrote of a regular seven-day week and used the creation week of Genesis one as a model. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..."

There is no way the days of Genesis one can be made to mean long periods of time. In addition, if each day represents many millions of years, how can the following be explained?

The theistic-evolution view and the Biblical creation week cannot be harmonized.

In addition, vegetation was created on day three, but insects were created on day six. If each day represents many millions of years how did plants which are dependent on insects for cross-pollination exist during all that time?

WHY CHRISTIANS CANNOT BELIEVE EVOLUTION

What of the Christian's outlook on evolution? Is it possible for the Christian to believe in the theory? In addition to rational, scientific reasons for rejecting evolution (see chapter V) there are some solid Biblical other reasons why the Christian must reject it.

1. The Bible teaches a fiat creation, that is, a creation by the command of God. ("God said..." Genesis 1:3,6,9,14,20,24; compare Psalms 33:6; 148:1-5; II Corinthians 4:6) However, evolution denies this, saying that the earth came about by a slow, purely materialistic process.

2. The Bible record reveals that the first plants and animals were created full grown. (Genesis 1:11,12,20-25) Evolution denies this, teaching that the first life forms were quite small and incomplete.

3. The Bible states that plants and animals only produced "after their kind." (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25) However, evolution, by its very nature implies that plants and animals must produce offspring not after their kind.

4. The Bible says there was one original man. (Genesis 2:7,8; Matthew 19:4; I Corinthians 15:45-47) However, evolution says that by the time man became man he was an entire race.

5. The Bible plainly teaches that woman was taken from the side of man. (Genesis 2:21-23) However, evolution teaches that woman evolved along side man.

6. The Bible presents man in the image of God and reveals his decline and fall. (Genesis 1:27; 3:1-24) Man, then, began at the highest point and fell to the lowest depths. Evolution, on the other hand, has man beginning as a small mass of protoplasm and out of this climbing to the greatest heights.

7. In the Bible man is said to have an immortal soul. (Matthew 10:28; Ecclesiastes 12:7) However, evolution pictures "early man" as not much more than mere beast and hardly a candidate for possessing a soul. Did God at some point just "zap" souls into mankind or did the soul also evolve?

8. If evolution is true then there was no first man, no fall, no sin, no punishment and no redemption. This makes void the redemptive plan of man's salvation from sin by the blood of Christ. (I John 1:7) Evolution, therefore, nullifies the Christian system.

9. The Bible teaches that all things were created through Christ. (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2) It would be interesting to hear evolutionists explain how Christ worked through the evolution process. But, again, such an idea is absurd.

Under no circumstance can the Christian believe the philosophy of evolution. The two concepts are separated by a vast gulf.

WHAT ABOUT DINOSAURS?

When discussing evolution it is not uncommon for questions to be asked about dinosaurs. In the minds of many there seems to be some connection between dinosaurs and evolution. In fact, it is thought by many that dinosaurs prove the theory.

Often when those who think they believe evolution hear someone question the theory they will say, "But, what about the dinosaurs?!" as if these animals somehow make evolution a fact. The truth is, how-ever, that dinosaurs have nothing at all to do with the theory.

That dinosaurs once lived on earth is a fact. Many of their remains have been unearthed and are on display in museums throughout the world, but they have no relation to evolution. They are simply extinct animals and are no different than other extinct animals that lived in more recent times, such as the three-toed sloth, the carrier pigeon, the dodo bird and the Steller sea cow, all of which died out within the last 300 years.

Dinosaurs were simply animals of an earlier time. Their remains do not reveal any kind of evolution. They are all distinct and can be classified in the groups to which they belong. There are no dinosaurs showing gradual transitions between different types, just as there are no such transitions in living animals.

Another question people ask is: "Are dinosaurs prehistoric?" No, dinosaurs are not prehistoric. Since they are part of the creation then they are a part of Biblical history! There is nothing about the earth that is "pre-history"! Such an idea is misleading. "Did they live during the time of man?" Yes! (See page 49, note 49) Likewise, the Bible is clear in explaining that all forms of life were created during the six days (Genesis 1:11-31; Exodus 20:11), hence, dinosaurs existed during the history of man.

In addition, there are some other references which are more specific. For example, the Bible gives a description of an animal called "behemoth." It is said to have a "tail like a cedar," "strength" in its loins and bones like "bars of steel." (See Job 40:15-18) Some have thought that this refers to a hippopotamus, however a hippo does not have a tail like a tree. This is a good description of the brontosaurs with its gigantic tail, thick body and huge legs. Read also of the "leviathan" which likely refers to one of the fire-breathing dinosaurs. (Job 41:1, 11-34)

Indeed, dinosaurs lived during the time of man. When and how they died out is another question. All indications show this was caused by some great catastrophe. Different suggestions have been offered as to when this was. It could have happened sometime during the early history of man. However, since many relate their disappearance to vast amounts of water, the most logical answer is that most died during the great Biblical flood. (Genesis 6:17; 7:11,21-24)

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Another question often related to evolution is the age of the earth. For evolution to have occurred there had to be lots of time - extremely long periods of time! This is a fundamental requirement of the theory, hence, evolutionists stretch the earth's history just as far as they can. The Bible, on the other hand, though not giving a date for creation, limits the time to thousands instead of millions of years. When this view is proposed people often show surprise and even scoff at the idea that the earth may relatively young. But why? Simply because they have been conditioned to think in terms of an old earth philosophy and have never considered anything else.

Many are surprised to learn that there is much scientific evidence pointing to a young earth. Note the following cases.

1. Earth Population - Using the standard population growth rate and applying it to the general time evolutionists claim man has been on the earth, the projected population at present would be 10 to the 5000th power. This is 10 followed by 5000 zeroes. However, calculations show that all known space could only hold 10 to the 100th power. That's 10 to the 4900th power people left over even after all known space is filled! Such a figure is so absurd it is not worthy of serious consideration. On the other hand applying the same growth rate to 2500 B.C. (or the approximate time of the flood, when the man's history began anew) the population of the earth should be about 4.5 billion. Remarkable isn't it!

2. The Earth's Magnetic Field - T.G. Barnes, well-known for his unique research in this area, has shown that at the known decay rate of the earth's magnetic field it will be depleted by about 3900 A.D. Using this data and projecting back into the past, he has calculated that a maximum age for the earth would be no more than 10,000 years.

3. Shrinkage Of The Sun - The sun is gradually burning up. Science can measure the decreasing diameter of the sun. At the present rate it is calculated that just 100,000 years ago the sun would have been twice its present size. At that size it would have been so hot that the earth would burn up! Further calculations reveal that only 20 million years ago the sun would have been the size of the earth's orbit around it. And 500 million years ago it would have been so large that the entire solar system could fit inside it! But remember, evolutionists claim the sun is several billion years old! So, something is wrong with the evolutionary timetable! Something is drastically wrong! According to this scientific data the earth could not be very old.

4. Hydrogen In The Universe - The amount of hydrogen in the universe is decreasing at a steady and rather rapid rate. It is constantly disappearing and is not being replenished in any significant amounts. Now, if the universe is billions of years old the question is: "Why is there so much hydrogen?" The amount of hydrogen should be greatly reduced! In fact, according to the vast age of the universe offered by evolutionists, it should have been depleted long ago. Since it is known that the universe has an abundance of hydrogen this would indicate that the universe (with the earth) is very young. Evolutionists are at loss to explain why there is so much hydrogen.

5. Helium In The Earth's Atmosphere - It is known that helium, the product of disintegrating minerals, is accumulating in the earth's upper atmosphere. The rate at which this is occurring is measurable. Now if the earth is as old as evolutionists say, based on the known rate that helium is collecting there should be enormous quantities of it in the atmosphere. However, this is not the case. According to the amount of helium in the atmosphere the earth is no older than about 10,000 years. If the earth is excessively old where is the helium? The only explanation offered by evolutionists is that helium must, somehow, be escaping from the earth's atmosphere. Is there any evidence of this? No. That such a light gas could escape the gravitational pull of the earth is ludicrous.

6. Ocean Sediment - Sediment (the collection of minerals, sand and small rock particles) is being continuously deposited on the ocean floors. The rate of this deposition can be calculated. Using this rate of accumulation an approximate age of the earth can be determined. If the earth is extremely old the ocean sediment should show evidence of this. However, the ocean floors reveal an average sediment buildup of less than 3000 feet, which projects an age for the earth at approximately 10,000 years.

7. Moon Dust - Dust from space is continually being drawn into the gravitational pull of both the earth and moon. Estimates of the amount of dust accumulation can be measured. Since the earth has an atmosphere the dust cannot settle directly because of being washed by wind and water. On the other hand, since the moon has no atmosphere to disturb the dust it accumulates directly, meaning there is a distinct buildup. Based on the ancient age of the moon set by evolutionists it was projected that the dust should be fifty to seventy feet deep. This is why the early lunar landing modules had wide "feet" or "pods" - so they would not sink down. However, what a surprise it was to find a layer of dust only an inch or so deep. Indeed, the moon is very young. And since all agree that the moon and earth are the same age this means the earth is also very young!

There are many other similar, equally impressive, evidences which point to a relatively young earth.

FOOTNOTES

What Is Evolution?
1High School Biology, BSCS series, Chicago, Rand McNally, p.229
2Winchester, A.M., Biology, Princeton, Van Nostrand, p.4
3Loc. cit.

Brief History of Evolution
1Davis, W.O., Evolution and Revelation, Austin, Firm Foundation, p.86
2Bales, James, Clark, R.D., Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Grand Rapids, Baker, p.31
3Surburg, Raymond, Darwin, Evolution and Creation, St. Louis, Concordia, p.177
4Sedgwick, Adam, Darwin's Life and Letters, New York, Appelton, p.43
5Dodson, Edward, A Textbook on Evolution, Philadelphia, Sanders, p.23
6Rusch, Wilbert, Darwin, Evolution and Creation, S. Louis, Concordia, p.24
7Loc. cit.

Why Is Evolution Believed?
1Morris, Henry, The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids, Baker, p.26
2Bales, James, Clark R.D., op. cit., p.106
3Ibid, p.5
4Ibid, p.107
5Dwight, Thomas, Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist, London, Longmans, p.21
6Smith, Wilbur M, Therefore Stand, Boston, W.A. Wilde, p.329
7Meldeau, Fred J., Witnesses Against Evolution, Denver, Victory, p.10
8Loc. cit.
9Howitt, John, Karl Marx as an Evolutionist, Hants, England, E.P.M. p.4
10More, L.T., The Dogma of Evolution, Princeton, University Press, p.304
11Schwarze, Theodore, Evolution, Toronto, ICC, p.70
12Bales, James, Evolution and the New Inquisition, Lufkin, Tract a Moth, p.8

Do All Scientists Believe Evolution?
1Brown, Relis, Biology, Boston, Heath, p.531
2Hebbert, G.K., A Biologist's Views on Evolution, Hants, England, E.P.M., p.5
3Clark, Austin, Quarterly Review of Biology, December, 1928, p.539
4Cooper, Kenneth, Science, March , 1955, p.429
5Fleischmann, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol.65, pp.194,195
6Fleming, John, Witnesses Against Evolution, Denver, Victory, p.73
7Elam, E.A., The Bible Versus Theories of Evolution, Nashville, Gospel Advocate, p.240
8Blum, Harold, Time's Arrow and Evolution, Princeton, University Press, p.170
9Fuller, H.J., The Plant World, New York, Henry Holt, p.20
10Schwarze, Theodore, op. cit., p.70
11Davies, L.M., The Bible and Modern Science, London, Comstable, pp.2,7,8
12Elam, E.A., op. cit., p.86
13Ibid., p.246
14Loc. cit.
15Davies, L.M., Dewar, Douglas, Evolutionists Under Fire, Edinburgh, Darien, p.4
16Clark, R.E.D., Transactions of the Victoria Institute, p.63
17Whittaker, Edmund, Endeavour, January, 1944, p.42
18Elam, E.A., op. cit., p.85
19Kiss, Ferenco, History, April, 1949, p.3
20Wilson, McNair, The Witness of Science, John Murray, p.11
21Ibid, p.3
22Dixon, Malcolm, Science and Irreligion, Inter-Varsity, p.7
23Elam, E.A., op, cit., pp.84,85

Problems Facing Evolution
1Klotz, John, Genes, Genesis and Evolution, St. Louis, Concordia, p.51
2Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action, New York, Mentor, p.21
3Dewar, Douglas, Witnesses Against Evolution, Dencer, Victory, p.52
4Morris, Henry, Whitcomb, John, The Genesis Flood, Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, p.222
5Morris, Henry, The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids, Baker, 35
6Simpson, G.G., Timpo and Mode in Evolution, New York, Columbia University, p.105
7Simpson, G.G., The Meaning of Evolution, New York, Mentor, pp.102,103
8Dewar, Douglas, Is Evolution a Myth?, Hants, England, E.P.M., p.11
9Ibid., p.30
10Klotz, John, op. cit., pp.450,451
11Meldau, Fred, op. cit. p.21
12Dewar, Douglas, op. cit., pp.14,15
13Evolution, Toronto, I.C.C., pp.13,14
14Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, New York, Collier & Sons, p.359
15Klotz, John, op. cit., p.433
16Haldane. J.B.S., Is Evolution a Myth?, Hants, England, E.P.M., p.38
17Dewar, Douglas, op. cit., pp.13,14
18Klotz, John, op. cit., p.438
19Ibid, p.459
20Winchester, A.M., Biology and its Relation to Man, Princeton, Van Nostrand, p.80
21Meldeau, Fred, Why We Believe in Creation, Not in Evolution, Denver, Victory, p.266
22Evolution: The Unproven Hypothesis (quoted in Witnesses Against Evolution, Denver, Victory, p.37
23Klotz, John, op. cit., p.200
24Loc. cit.
25Morris, Henry, Whitcomb, John, op. cit., p.178
26Klotz, John, op. cit., p.74
27Genesis 1:11,12,24,25
28Meldeau, Fred, op. cit., p.107 (quoted in U.S.D.A. Yearbook)
29High School Biology, op. cit., p.318
30Klotz, John, op. cit., pp.484.485
31High School Biology, op. cit., p.318
32Meldeau, Fred, op. cit., p.131
33High School Biology, op. cit., pp.298,299
34Morris, Henry, op. cit., p.14

Evidence For Evolution Examined
1Bales, James, Clark, R.T., op cit., p.107
2Klotz, John, op. cit., pp.132,133
3Reno, Cora, Evolution, Fact or Theory, Chicago, Moody , p.48
4Clark, Wilfred, Early Forerunners of Man, London, Balliere, Tindall & Cox, p.149
5Strauss, Wm., Quarterly Review of Biology, p.149
6Evolution, Toronto, I.C.C., p.23
7Ibid, p.24
8Hall, Simpson, Diseases of the Nose, Throat and Ear, New York, Livingston, p.138
9Klotz, op. cit., p.106
10Idid., p.109
11Nuttall, George, Immunity and Blood Relations, Cambridge, University Press, p.329
12Ibid., p.4
13Brown, Arthur, Evolution of Blood Precipitation, New York, Glendale, p.32
14Evolution, op. cit., p.10
15Loc cit.
16Reno, Cora, op. cit., p.69
17Huettner, A.F., Comaprative Embyrology of the Vertebrates, New York, Macmillan, p.1
18Winchester, A.M., op. cit., p.385
19Klotz, op. cit., p.39
20Muller, Herman, Time Magazine, November 11, 1946, p.38
21Wright, Sewell, The New Systematics, London, Clarendon Press, p.174
22High School Biology, op. cit., p.605
23Morris, Henry, Evolution and the Modern Christian, Grand Rapids, Baker, p.29
24Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Gleerup Press, p.174
25Ibid., p.1176
26Dunbar, C.O., Historical Geology, New York, Wiley, p.47
27Clark, Austin, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, New York, Williams & Wilkins, p.189
28Davis, W.O., op. cit., p.171
29Wentworth, Baroness, Thoroughbred Racing Stock, London, Scribner's Sons, p.79
30Nilson, Heribert, op. cit., p.552
31Reno, Cora, op. cit., pp.75,76
32Klotz, John, op. cit., p.358
33Weidenreich, Franz, Apes, Giants and Man, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, p.27
34Klotz, op. cit., p.361,362
35Ibid., p.364
36Meldeau, Fred, op, cit., p.318
37Criswell, W.A., Did Man Just Happen?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, p.86
38Evolution, op. cit., p.36
39Klotz, John, op. cit., p.368
40Ibid., p.379
41Ibid., p.381
42Ibid., p.370
43Ibid., p.378
44Loc. cit.
45Ibid., p.375
46Scientific America, May, 1964, p.62
47Cleveland, L.V., Anti-Evolution Compendium, Vol.9, quote by Maldeau, Fred., op. cit. p.320
48Meldeau, Fred., op. cit., p.321
49Gillette, David, A New Sauropod Dinosaur, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Dec. 1991
50Morris, Henry, Whitcomb, John., op. cit., pp.289-300
51Davis, W.O., op. cit., pp.182,183
52Reno, Cora, op. cit., p.82
53Kerr, John, Evolution, New York, Macmillan, p.212
54Klotz, John., op. cit., p.388,389

Fruits and Tendencies of Evolution
1Simpson, G.G., op. cit., p.19
2Evolution After Darwin, "At Random: A Television Review," Chicago, University Press, Vol.III, p.41
3Brewer, G.C., Lecture on Evolution, Austin, Firm Foundation, p.25
4Loc. cit.
5Davis, W.O., op. cit., p.121
6Rusch, Wilbert, op. cit., p.34
7Loc. cit.
8Barrett, A.B., The Bible Versus Theories of Evolution, Nashville, Gospel Advocate, p.234
9Davis, L.M., Douglas Dewar, op. cit., p.5
10Bales, James, op. cit., p.6
11Howitt, John, op. cit., p.4
12Recent Opinions of Biologists on Evolution, Hants, England, E.P.M., p.6
13Davis, W.O., op. cit., p.122.123
14Ibid, p.14

Table of Contents