Where Evolution Stands Today is the title of an article in Life magazine (Oct. 19, 1959). As one first begins to read this article he gets the impression that scientists have uncovered something that makes evolution no more a "theory" but a "fact," or as some evolutionist prefer, "a verified theory." In the first paragraph is the statement: "Today discovery upon discovery of missing links in the evolutionary chain - the living ancestral mollusk above is one - continues to affirm Darwin's inspired vision, and evolution is accepted by scientists and by mankind in general the world around." (Emphasis mine, FJ). Toward the end of the article is another bold assertion: "Yet for all remaining riddles and missing links, the towering edifice of Darwin's thought stands today on foundations that have solidified with each advance of human knowledge."

Now, the foregoing statements leave one, who does not know better, with the impression that the teaching that man descended from lower forms is a fact and stands on a solid foundation. But this article follows suit just like the other evolution books and articles that I have had chance to read. The failure of the article we will discuss after a few introductory remarks.

Evolution has occurred! This statement cannot be successfully denied. But, admitting that there is evolution or "change" in the animal world leaves a lot of things unproven. There is a vast difference in accepting the data of evolutionist and saying that it proves "descent."

A few things that it might be good to clear are: (1) Evolutionist do not say that man descended from the monkey. They say that both man and monkey came from the common lower form, and that man is at the highest peak on the evolutionary tree. (2) The Bible does not say when the "beginning" was. I believe that I can prove to any reasonable mind that creation did not take place at 4004 B.C., as Archbishop Usher claims. Therefore, even though I may think that the scientists' dating of certain fossils and geological formations is to extreme, there is no conflict between science and the Bible on this point.

Evolutionists have uncovered many fossils of men and animals. Knowing the general attributes of ape and of man, they have tried to fit these remains into an evolutionary scale to prove that man descended from these lower forms. Keep in mind that they have only found INTERMEDIATE FORMS and not TRANSITIONAL FORMS. There is a lot of difference! Our Life article begins to break down here. It is stated: "Some of these crucial links are still missing. Although many have been found in recent years, for every link uncovered bv the scientist's spade, new empty spaces are revealed above and below in the evolutionary chain. Though the gaps grow smaller with each discovery, it is likely that they will never be filled, that missing links will always evade and challenge man's imagination." (Emphasis mine, fj) Now isn't that something? At first we got the impression that there were no doubts about evolution. Mind you, evolution can not be proven correct without the "missing links," but now they say that some gaps "will never be filled." Evolution a fact? They say it is, but the "facts" deny it. Darwin said that many "transitional" forms would be found. This is what would have to be found to establish organic evolution. Remember too that it would be practically impossible to prove "descent" by fossils.

Because things are similar does not prove one descended from the other. Three hundred similar intermediate forms between man and ape might be found, but this would not prove descent. Another assumption of the evolutionist! We are familiar with the mating of the horse and the donkey with the result being a mule. It is conceivable that evolutionists might uncover the bones of these three animals and set up a scale to show that the donkey evolved into the mule and the mule into the horse. Again, let me emphasize: Similarity, per se, does not prove descent.

Evolutionists say that amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, all have forelimbs that "are built on an identical structural plan, consisting of one bone in the upper arm, two in the forearm, several in the wrist and five in the hand with finger joints attached." I thought they said that there had been evolution. They now deny evolution and say that all of these animals have "Identical structural plan." It is easy for the Christian to understand why they might have the same structural plan. God created heaven and earth and all things therein. But WHY, someone asks, do all of these animals and man have the same structural plan? The Answer: They needed such a structure for the motivation of their body.

In the field of embryology we learn that fishes, birds and man all go through similar stages of development. The claim is that "every higher animal on earth retraces briefly in its embryonic development the entire history of its race - in the classic phrase, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Evolutionists assume what they must prove here also. Before we could agree on the above statement we would have to solve the two assumptions: ( 1) that embryology is a recapitulation and/or (2) that life has gone through these various forms in the past. Neither can be proven, therefore evolution stands as a false theory. Again the question WHY is raised. Why are there stages in the development of the human embryo which resemble the lower animals ? The answer: These stages are necessary for the development of the embryo to maturation.

When evolutionists talk about the "mutation of species" some Christians shudder, thinking that there is a conflict between this and the Genesis record. But keep in mind that the present classification of animals and plants into genus, species, etc. originated with von Linne Linnaeus (1707-1778). The Genesis account does not use the Linnaean system, needless to say. It would be impossible to know now just what limits God placed on the "kind" of Genesis 1 :24, et. al.

Evolutionists are posed with two great problems which they must solve before they expect Christians to just disregard the Bible as a book of myths. Both of these problems are freely admitted by the Life article. They are: (1) the ORIGIN OF LIFE and (2) the ORIGIN OF MAN. Where did the original one cell structure come from? And, if evolution is assumed, when did man become distinct from the ape?

In view of the great assumptions of evolutionists how could one afford to discard his faith in God and the Bible in favor of such a doctrine. Every major point that we have mentioned that they use to prove organic evolution is an assumption. As for me and my house we will place our trust in Jehovah and His Divine Word. Where do you stand?

Truth Magazine IV:2, pp. 18-19
November 1959