WHEN scientists are asked "What is man?" the majority will reply that he is merely the latest and highest development in the process of evolution of life, which began many millions of years ago with a microscopic living cell that somehow spontaneously popped into existence. And multitudes of their hearers will believe them. Why? Because of the proof offered? No ; the hearers will accept the answer because scientists have accomplished much in certain fields and because they view scientists as shaping theories on only experimental fact and cold logic, unswayed by emotion or personal prejudice and certainly untainted by dishonesty in weighing the evidence. But this blind faith in them is not justified by their works relative to evolution . If, in keeping with the scientific method, we set aside their assertions and speculations and leave only facts on the scales, evolution's case is found to be weightless, and God is again found to be true and his account of man's creation stands vindicated .-Romans 3 :4.

Resemblance and relationship are not the same; yet one of the outstanding assumptions of evolutionary scientists is that they are . That is, when the assumption is convenient. When there is a resemblance that does not help their theory they dismiss it on the grounds that there were parallel lines of evolution, producing organisms that resemble but which are unrelated . Thus they leave their hands untied, to pick and choose and reject at their whim . So they line up heads and skeletons, from fish to man, each resembling in varying degrees its neighbor in the line-up, and argue that the resemblance proves evolution . But they do admit that the animals in this line-up are only illustrative, that these particular animals are not the connected ancestry of man . First they argue that the resemblance proves evolution, then tell us the animals in their chosen resemblance chain are not related. In this line-up and next to man they put the ape, but they become indignant if anyone else says they teach we came from apes . It is like taking links of many shapes and sizes and lining them up according to resemblance and saying they originally formed one chain . It is like a flight of stairs, with man as the top step, but all of the steps ascending to it admittedly being imaginary . Such is shallow philosophy, not sound science .

Frequently these scientific philosophers give way to dishonesty in desperate endeavors to save their sinking theory. Ernst Haeckel was a famous evolutionist, and made wide use of diagrams to prove resemblance between human embryos and other animal embryos, and also skeletal resemblances between man and other animals . Once a Dr. Brass supplied Haeckel with accurate diagrams, but Haeckel doctored them before publication . He later confessed : "I begin at once with the contrite confession that a small number of my diagrams are really forgeries in Dr . Brass' sense. Hundreds of the best zoologists lie under the same charge." (Miincher Allgemeine Zeitung, January 1909) But the diagrams keep appearing. It is like what Anthony Standen said about Haeckel's evolutionary tree that shows present animals on the tips of branches, all from the one trunk and root : "Haeckel's trees have indeed fallen to pieces, for the wood that should support them was all hypothetical wood . And yet they keep on making their appearance, in book after book intended for instruction." (Science Is a Sacred Cow) Appearances are deceiving ; deceptive evolutionists use them .

Some evolutionists, though not many, still cling to Haeckel's recapitulation theory that the human fetus goes through man's evolutionary history, such as fish stage and hair stage and tailed stage ; but the authorities in the field have abandoned it. Some still point to body structures appar ently no longer used, called vestigial, and say they prove evolution . The evidence is that they are not so much vestigial as it is that their use remains unknown. Anyway, evolution needs to show the gaining of new organs, not the loss of old ones . Blood tests were once pointed to as a means of showing relationship between man and certain animals near him in the evolutionary chain ; but they proved this practice ridiculous and embarrassing when certain blood tests showed frogs and snakes and mice nearer to men than monkeys were .

So-called "missing links" between men and apes have deceived many. A close study of them reveals to one's amazement the utter lack of evidence, and the tendency to twist the evidence to suit evolution's case . The Piltdown man is a fragment of human skull united with a chimpanzee jaw. Neanderthal man is admittedly no ancient ancestor of man. Modern-type men have been found in earth layers older than any of the famous "missing links" ; so how can these be ancestral to modern man, if modern-type man existed before them? And when the evolutionists find a fossil man that does not help but hinders their theory, what do they do? They conceal the evidence, as evolutionist Hooton admits : "Heretical and nonconforming fossil men were banished to the limbo of dark museum cupboards, forgotten or even destroyed ." (Apes, Men, and Morons) Of the famous "missing links" evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said : "We cannot trace modern man back to any of these extinct types." Professor Branco of Berlin University said : "Paleontology tells us nothing on the subject-it knows no ancestors of man ." Professor Virchow declared : "The man-ape has no existence and the missing link remains a phantom." Austin Clark of Smithsonian Institution said : "Missing links are misinterpretations."

The evolutionists allow the public to believe that the geological record of the rocks proves evolution, that in the rock layers are fossils that trace the ascending chain of life . Not so . There are innumerable fossils of forms living today, or of extinct forms but which are not transitional forms from one animal family to another. But there is no chain showing the change-over from one family to another, the deceptive claims of evolutionists notwithstanding. Darwin himself admitted this, in his Origin of Species : "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain ; and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory ." The fact is that life appears suddenly in fossil form in the rock layers, and in great diversity of forms and families.

The appearance is not gradual, with increasing diversity, as evolution would require . Deep down the rock layers have no fossils ; life had not started. Then all of a sudden an abundance of fossils appear in the layers immediately above these blank strata. It means creation, sudden and with variety, and not evolution . The record of the rocks proves God true and evolution false . Hear it from the mouths of evolutionists, and be convinced. The Smithsonian Institution biologist Austin Clark said : "So far as concerns the major groups of animals the creationists seem to have the better of the argument . There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.

Each is a special animal-complex, related more closely to all the rest and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Of man he adds : "He appeared suddenly and in substantially the same form as he is today ." (Literary Digest, February 16, 1929) Evolutionist Lecomte du Nouy admitted : "Each group, order, or family seems to be born suddenly and we hardly ever find the forms which link them to the preceding strain. When we discover them they are already completely differentiated. Not only do we find practically no transitional forms, but in general it is impossible to authentically connect a new group with an ancient one." About birds he lamented that they have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation" . -Human Destiny .

NEW KNOWLEDGE FORCES EVOLUTION's RETREAT

Evolutionists once contended, and some still do, that life spontaneously generated itself millions of years ago, and that that beginning evolved into the myriads of complex forms of today . New knowledge forced a series of retreats from this position, until by the latter half of the nineteenth century "all biologists were convinced that spontaneous generation was definitely disproved for all forms of living organisms". (Man and the Biological World) "There is not a single fact or a single hypothesis, today, which gives an explanation of the birth of life or of natural evolution ." (Human Destiny, 1947) With all their ingenious laboratory techniques modern scientists have tried and tried to create life, but have consistently failed . It has caused reasonable ones to acknowl edge that what they cannot do under various controlled conditions in the laboratory certainly could not happen by sheer chance. The first link of evolution's chain is a missing link .

But granting evolutionists the start they do not have, how would it evolve to manhood? More than a century ago evolutionist Lamarck said an organism acquired certain characteristics from its environment, which is true, and that these acquired characteristics were passed on to the offspring, which is not true . So he contended that environment changed the organism, and down through future generations the accumulations of acquired characteristics developed new animals . Now geneticists know better. "Until 1900 many biologists believed that characteristics plants and animals acquired from their environment were passed to their offspring . Modern genetics has proved they are not ." (Life, March 17, 1947) In this connection note another of the many instances of dishonesty by evolutionists. In the 1920's a Dr . Paul Kammerer of Vienna claimed to have a specimen that acquired a characteristic from environment and passed it on to its offspring . The outcome : "The climax of Kammerer's case came recently when a certain American scientist journeyed to Vienna to investigate his claims first hand. Upon examination of one of the specimens which has, it was claimed, developed new structures, the visitor found that Kammerer had injected India ink under the skin to produce a swelling. Upon being confronted with the fake, Kammerer picked up a revolver and shot himself ." -Back to Creationism, 1929.
Next came Darwin with his theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest . But new developments must arrive before they can be selected as fit to survive. As Professor Coulter of the University of Chicago said : "The most fundamental objection to the theory of natural selection is that it cannot originate characters ; it only selects among characters already existing ." Or as evolutionist Hugo de Vries put it : "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest ."

Hugo de Vries tried to account for the arrival by mutations, which refers to apparently spontaneous changes between parent and offspring, and which changes are inheritable . This theory has been seized upon today by many evolutionists as the answer to their prayer . On the basis of mutations some try to avoid having evolution proceed slowly, but say it happened fast, in big jumps . In this way they are not embarrassed by the lack of fossils to connect family groups ; the change from family to family came in jumps, not slow and gradual changes. Much experimenting has been done with mutations, especially since the building of atomic piles, for atomic radiation induces a flood of mutations, which ordinarily are rare in nature . The result? Innumerable mutations have been induced, but no new families produced.

Moreover, if the mutations are small they weaken, and if large they kill. Being harmful in stead of helpful, they explain no upward evolving, but downward devolving and degenerating. Consider : "I am afraid that many anthropologists (including myself) have sinned against genetic science and are leaning upon a broken reed when they depend upon mutations. The evidence of modern experimental genetics seems to indicate that most mutations are harmful, and that many of them are even lethal, and that they are attributable in the main to deterioration ." (Hooton's Apes, Men, and Morons) "No useful mutations have appeared, and none is anticipated." (Life, November 21, 1949) "It is conservatively estimated that over 99 per cent of mutated genes are harmful ." (Science News Letter, November 4, 1950) "The mutation theory of De Vries may now be relegated to the limbo of discarded hypotheses," opines Harvard University's Professor Jeffrey .

These are the hard, cheerless facts facing the evolutionists who had hoped that their failing theory could gain salvation by mutations . From the fog of wishful thinking the firm fact emerges that neither acquired characteristics nor natural selection nor mutations can form new families . While allowing for many varieties within the family or Genesis kind, and which can interbreed and produce offspring, the Creator's laws of heredity ensure obedience to the divine decree to bring forth "after its kind" . (Genesis 1 :11, 21, 24, AS) So repeatedly the theories behind which evolutionists entrenched themselves have been smashed by new facts, and these forced retreats should rout evolution from the minds of sober thinkers .

Actually, the findings of true science prove the Bible account of Genesis . Science confirms the order of appearance of the different big divisions of life, as given in Genesis chapter 1, and the mathematical odds against the ancient writer's guessing this order are staggering . This first Bible book also shows the unchangeableness of families, that life would reproduce "after its kind", which fact the fossil record confirms. Geology shows complex life forms appearing suddenly and in great variety of families, as would be the case in creation . Bible truth dovetails with science's discovery that men of all races came from one pair originally, that archaeological findings prove civilization of a high order appears suddenly, that language studies show the oldest tongues are the most complex, giving no hint of evolving from animal grunts and growls . Degeneration instead of evolution upward is evident now, and the Bible's report of Adam's fall accounts for it . Man's creation in God's image harmonizes with man's ability to reason, determine right and wrong, manifest conscience, hold dominion over animals, worship the Creator ; in short, it explains the tremendous gulf that separates man and any other animal . The Bible account fits so perfectly with the facts of true science ; evolution is a misfit in every way .

Then why do the majority of the men of science accept evolution? It is their faith ; they stoop to many means to convert others, and they view the Bible as their competitor . Sir Arthur Keith said : "Evolution is unproved and unprovable . We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable ." Professor Watson of London University said : "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible ." Dr. Calman of the British Museum said scientists profess to accept it "as a convenient weapon with which to meet the fundamentalists" . Professor Bateson stated : "Though we must hold to our faith in the evolution of species there is little evidence as to how it came about, and no clear proof that the process is continuing in any considerable degree at the present time ." Professor D. H. Scott contended : "Yet evolution remainswe cannot get away from it, even if we hold it only as an act of faith, for there is no alternative ." Sir J. W. Dawson, professor of geology, said that to believe was "an act of faith, not that kind which is based on testimony or evidence, however slight, but of that unreasoning kind which we usually stigmatize as mere credulity and superstition" . And finally, Professor T . L. More, University of Cincinnati : "The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone ; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."

The scientists have converted multitudes to their faith, a faith that is without works to prove it, and hence a dead faith . (James 2 :26) Many Catholic, Protestant and Jewish clergymen have embraced it, and thus accept this dogma of ancient pagans along with some of their other pagan doctrines, such as trinity and immortal soul and eternal torment . Encyclopedias show Greeks and others before Christ believed evolution, and that sav age tribes in remote parts of earth believe it today . Space forbids extensive quoting to prove Christendom's acceptance of this, but since the pope of the Roman Catholic Church is foremost in Christendom's religious circles, we will cite him . In an encyclical of August, 1950, the pope said that it was permissible to study "the doctrine of evolution in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter" . An Associated Press dispatch of September, 1951, elaborated : "Pope Pius XII says that the theory of evolution can be studied so far as it deals with origins of the human body but should not be allowed to raise questions as to divine creation of the human soul ." Such religionists argue that God used evolution to do the creative work of Genesis chapter 1, but that position is contrary to his decree that his created works reproduce "after their kind".

True Christians will not compromise . They will not be dazzled by the fake wisdom of this world that is foolishness with God, nor be preyed upon by the vain philosophies and empty deceptions of a world that has rejected Christ, nor endeavor to twist God's Word to fit the false stories of babblers . (I Corinthians 3 :19 ; Colossians 2 :8 ; 1 Timothy 4:7; 2 Peter 3 :16) They will not swallow the pagan pill of evolution, not even after modern science talks it up or Christendom's clergy sugarcoat it and offer it from their pulpits. Let worldlings allow their ears to be tickled and accept men as true though it make God false if they wish. As for Christians, they will "let God be found true, though every man be found a liar" .