Foy E. Wallace, Jr.
The principle of adaptation by law is against the idea of fortuity, establishes Intelligence, and proves that animal life did not spring from vegetable life; and that human life has not evolved from animal life. On the supposition that all life has developed from the same aboriginal parent, the evolutionist finds himself without any explanation as to how certain shifts took place and when the changes occurred. It will not be amiss to list a few of such questions that the theories of organic evolution do not answer.
If all examples of the animal kingdom are from the same animal insect or stock, why do the progenitors of some have two legs and others four? And why do we not find birds with four legs and men with wings? It might be added that this will be in the next world, but the evolutionist does not believe in the future life!
If fortuity and not Intelligence is the guiding principle, animals should naturally be expected to appear with all manner of deformities: Eyes where ears should be; nose behind and ears in front; a horse with the head of a cow; and a cow with the horns of a rhinoceros. And since the cow will kick, the same as a horse, why do not horses have horns like a cow? The horse thus has only one defensive weapon, while the cow has two, and that looks like discrimination! Let the evolutionist infidel account for the neck of the giraffe, the trunk of the elephant, the eye of the eagle, and the hand of man. And it may be added that if man had used his hand only to feed himself, would he just have retained his front legs, like his supposed monkey ancestor has?
If evolution is true, and the tendency is upward, why has not a new species of mankind developed an angelic species, with a higher sphere of existence and abode? But there is actually more difference between the highest in the ape and the lowest in man (which is next in order in the supposed ascending scale) than there is in the highest in the ape and the lowest in the monkey family. Why are there no examples of a series of intermediates?
If man descended from the animal, why is the animal grown so much sooner, the monkey, for instance, in two years. But man has lived to a much older ending, according to both history and the Bible—why, if he came from the animals of so much shorter life? If thousands of years ago man came from such short-lived animals, but lived so long himself, why does he not live longer now? If evolution is true, the development would be the same in all nations; and the tendency being upward, why has there been a decline? And since it is true, according to science, that negro blood will break out in the tenth generation, if man’s ancestry is the monkey, why are not babies born with long tails now?
Moses said, “male and, female created he them” in the beginning. In all animals the male is better formed, is more graceful and attractive in plumage, in carriage, and in beauty. But this is not so of man. If the animal and man are from the same aboriginal parent, when and where and how did the shift take place? And when and how did the change begin?
These are only a few of thousands of examples to prove by the law of adaptation that neither fortuity nor evolution is the process, and that nothing short of Intelligence can be the cause of all forms and phases of life, and that by creation.
The Bible affirms direct creation, that God created man as man. Moses said that man was formed out of the dust of the ground. Darwin said that man evolved out of certain influences from the bottom of the sea. So Moses said dust, and Darwin said wet dirt—just a difference between “dry” and “wet” dirt. So the only idea Darwin had in the direction of being correct, he borrowed from Moses!
The Scripture account of man’s origin is simple and rational, and agrees with geology that each species created was perfect in kind at the first. Man was physically, mentally and morally pure at the first, and corruption came by sin. The infidel socialist says that immorality is due to man’s struggle to maintain life; but his infidel evolution theory says that out of the struggle to maintain life comes morals and clean living. In which is he correct? How could moral force in man develop out of a great struggle for life, and then be lost by the struggle to maintain it?
If improvement is the law of nature, then perfection is the end, and it follows that if there is no God, there will be, when that perfection is reached. Why not accept the God of revelation: “In the beginning God created…” These are just a few of the many illustrations and examples that thwart the theories of transmutation, and that show the doctrine of organic evolution to be unscientific and untrue.