First of all, Genesis 1, 26,
27, and God said, let us make man in our image after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, over the cattle and
over all the earth. and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His image. In the image of God created He
them, male and female, created He them. Psalm 139, verse 13
through verse 16. Psalm 139, verse 13 through 16. David is writing here of the
great omnipresence and omniscience of God, and he says, verse 13,
Thou hast possessed my reins, Thou hast covered me in my mother's
womb. I will praise Thee, for I am
fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are Thy works, and
that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from
Thee when I was made in secret and curiously wrought in the
lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance,
yet being imperfect, and in thy book all my members were written,
which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of
them." Now, look, verse 14. I will praise thee, for I am
fearfully and wonderfully made." Our subject again are men and
monkeys' brothers. the series evolution versus creation. We come to consider the human
question rather with regard to the creation of man as a particular
species as opposed to the evolutionary being of man. Now, if creation
be true, if it be the real manner of the existence of all things
that God by His power and the word and the breath of His mouth
made all things, it must also be true in regard to mankind. That is, if the lower forms of
life were created, we read they were in Genesis chapter 1, then
man and woman as the human species are also God's creation. On the other hand, if evolution
is true, if evolution is the real manner of the existence
of all things, if the lower forms of life simply evolve up higher
and higher, then it follows that man and woman also evolve. It must either be one or the
other, for there are no other options. It is either direct
creation by the power of God or evolution, but not a combination. of one or the both of them. For the scriptures make no case
for theistic evolution. I say that because there are
a lot of church people today who are willing to accept what's
called theistic evolution that God created but that he did it
by a process of evolution. So I will show you in this study
how evolution has resorted to fraud, to lies, and even to manufacturing,
quote, evidence, unquote, for the evolution of mankind. And how they foolishly imagine
that there is a missing link somewhere, perhaps between the
monkey and man, and in some cases, They have used fraud, they have
used deceit, they have outright lied in order that they might
gather, quote, the evidence, unquote, that they need. Now
the sad part is that their lives are printed. They are printed
in the textbooks of the school where their theories are passed
off as scientific absolute fact. And evolution has a stranglehold
at the present time on the whole educational system. As Henry
Mars stated, the evolutionary perspective has captured the
intellectual world and now is overwhelming the religious world
as well, unquote, and that's sad. Now we have pictures and
you've probably seen them in the textbook showing the evolution
of man from lower creatures, and usually you'll have something
like a very bent-over, hairy, ape-like creature, like a modern
man, that came in to be the modern man as we know them now. And yet, not one fossil find
confirms their theory that this is how man came into being. Yet
in the school books, in the museum, in art, in public television,
it's preached the theory of evolution as an absolute scientific provable
fact. mankind or humanity evolved or
was created by God is a very most important question for us
to consider. For if man evolved, If this is
the process of being, then there is no such thing as sin, there
is no such thing as the need of salvation, there is no judgment,
there is no redemption, there is no heaven, and there is no
hell. But if creation be true, then
there is a creator. Man is answerable to that sovereign
being. Man is a sinner before that sovereign
being. in need of redemption with a
soul and a conscious spirit capable of knowing or being ignorant
of the things of God who must stand before the judge of all
in some day. So it is a matter on which we
must take a stand. We cannot be indifferent, declaring
on the side of creation. And our present study will deal
mostly with a question between creation and evolution in regard
to mankind or to the human family. Why do we hear so much about
apes and monkeys and human beings being so near kin unto them? Why do they mainly think of monkeys
and men together when we think or when they think of evolution? Is it because of the claims of
evolution that the evolutionists contend that apes and that humans
evolved from a prior common ancestor all in the range of 30 or 60
or 70 million years ago? increasing the number it seems
like. Evolutionists call this progenitor
of apes and of men, hominoid ancestor, and they claim that
apes and men are to be put in one and the same class and that
is called hominoid. Evolutionists have spent much
of their time trying to prove that there is or was such a thing
as a man. Here is their theory. In the
past there existed a population of ape-like creatures that split
into such population and gave rise to gorillas and the other
which split once again to give rise to the chimpanzee and man,
unquote, quoting from their writing. Thus evolutionists contend that
man's nearest ancestor to be found is the gorilla and the
chimpanzee families that we see. Thus evolutionists contend that
man split off by a process of evolution from an ape-like family,
had ape-like ancestors millions and millions of years ago. And they're doing their best
by fraud and even by fabricated evidence to try to prove that
fact to people in our day. Say more about that later in
our study. But they're fond of pointing
out, or as part of their proof, the resemblance in apes and in
men. Not necessarily that man sprung
from apes, but that both human and apes sprang from a common
ancestor. For example, an anthropologist
by the name of Jeffrey Schwartz made a strong point, he thought,
to show that man more closely resembled the orangutan, saying,
said he, 26 traits with the orangutan are with the large ape. And some
of those likenesses that he pointed out were hair length, gestation
period, teeth, most widely separated mammary glands, population not
restricted to fertile cycles and so forth. He said that mankind
shared nine traits with gorillas and chimpanzees, five with the
gibbon, that small ape with the long arms that we see pictures
of sometimes. But do traits shared prove that
man and apes share a common ancestor and came up from that common
ancestor, including bodily resemblances? I have a book by Philip Morrow,
Against Evolution, and he points out that these can be easily
accounted for by or in creation saying, quote, Since man has
a physical being, requires organs for locomotion, sight, hearing,
manipulation, so like, in common with animals, his philosophy,
his physical makeup would resemble their in respect, he said, unto
those organs, unquote. And I found that in the book
Evolution at the Bar, page 52. So those who walk would have
legs, therefore, that simply is reasonable. Now if we followed
the line of evolutionary reasoning, we could make a case that man
descended from the horse instead of from the ape. Both eat and
they both drink and they run and they have eyes. Or we could
say that man descended up from the fish since men can swim and
he descended therefore from a common ancestor with the fish. The truth
is that there is a great gap that is fixed between the lowest
of human and the highest of the beast world, which is the result
of the special creation of Almighty God, for only mankind is made
in the image and in the likeness of God. I mention only two of
the great differences that are existent between human and the
creatures, which, as Philip Morrow said, are beneath the surface
in the regions of the soul and the spirit of man. And they are,
number one, the mind, and number two, the conscience. When we
think of that that distinguishes man, number one, the mind, and
number two, that marvelous faculty, the conscience and the way that
it operates. First of all, let's think about
the mind of man. Even though it is now defiled
by sin, it is a witness for creation and against evolution still.
It separates humans from all forms of life. Or as we quoted
before, the book Opposing Evolution by Philip Mara, in man we find
a creature with self-consciousness who can reflect, who can reason,
who can contemplate, who can arrange thoughts in different
ways, who can both by reason and by voice communicate thoughts
unto others, one who recognizes the beauty in music and in art. What other creature is there
that can rise to this height and match it? Only man of all
creatures has a natural capacity to learn and to speak a language
and to continue to learn and to remember and to store up knowledge
in the sub-consciousness where he has a special area of the
brain that controls his ability to speak after learning a language. In 70 years of life a human brain
or mind is capable, someone said, of receiving 15 trillion separate
bits of information and can memorize as many as 9 million volumes
in the Library of Congress. So said John Fred Meldo in his
book Against Evolution, page 243, 200. and 44. And yet the amazing mind
cannot be seen even when one sees the human brain, the brain
of an individual. The human brain makes advances
in every generation, unlike the beast of the field, especially
unlike the apes, which stay one and the same. Their civilization
never advances. The average brain weight of a
human, 3.3 pounds, so I read. A grayish pinkish jelly-like
substance containing in excess of 10 million nerve cells in
the human brain. By comparison and by size, the
ape's brain is smaller and lacks the necessary quality that it
might have speech. But man has another quality that
is, in essence, sets him greatly apart. from all of the apes and
all other lower creature. And that secondly is the moral
conscience. And again, though it is defiled
by sin, Titus 1 and verse 15, yet it is perhaps the most powerful
moral spiritual force in the human makeup. Only man, of all
creatures that God has made, is possessed or endowed with
a conscience. Only he has some sense or extent
of right and wrong, a sense of what is moral or immoral, an
emotional sense that develops emotional ties to others and
under things. None of this is found in the
ape or in the monkey family. No ape feels guilt or has emotional
problems or has any feeling of misery by another or from another
ape. They do not go to psychiatrists
and need treatment like the human family because of the guilt of
conscience. There are no treatment centers
for them anywhere to be found. The conscience of humans is one
of the strongest proof for special creatorship, especially that
humans are made in the likeness and in the image of God. Conscience
is not possible by the evolutionary scheme of things, nor is it possible
if there is no God. If there is no God, How come
the conscience to be? Evolution cannot supply the human
with a conscience, but it works to extinguish it. Always men
are working to put out the fires of conscience when they flame
up. Mankind the only creature with
such a conscience and that is the endowment of almighty God
himself. So the question, why believe
in evolution will stop at human being? Will evolution reach this
level and then stop and cease and be no more? If evolution
can be true and if there is a process of evolution, how then can it
cease at a certain level? Can matter stop evolving? Will humans turn into something
higher in the aeons and aeons that are to follow? Will men
eventually sprout wings and begin to fly around or soar from one
planet onto another? Will they become a sort of a
superman? I believe that the human family
is the ultimate final product of evolution. Will there be more? if millions and millions of years
continue. So now let's confront the claims
of evolutionists, what they have produced as quote proof of evolution. First of all, if you study the
embryos, evolutionists claim that the embryos go through an
evolutionary process. They say that, they say an embryo
is first a jelly protosan stage, then a fish-like embryo with
gill slits as it is in the womb, and then becomes a human embryo. Now the gill slits, they say,
identify the embryo being that of a fish which then over time
evolves into a human embryo. This seems to us absurd and the
absurdity appears in light of other evolutionary schemes which
they put forth that such changes take millions and millions of
years and yet here they're claiming a three-fold evolution which
occurred in just nine months in the womb of the mother. Plus
the fact that they are not gill slits at all. They do not open
and close into the mouth or the throat. They are pharmageal pouches
which become glands forming then the lower jaw and the inner ear
and such like, so say the Christian science. But in every case, embryos
in humans produce humans. They do not produce fish with
gill slit or birds or any such thing as that. Now with the invention
of the fetus scope in our lifetime, it can be seen that at every
single stage of their development, the human fetus remains that
throughout its development until the day of its birth. But if
it at first be nothing more than a fish, then abortion does not
seem so horrible, does it? if one is simply aborting a fish-like
creature with gill slit. But second, they argue from the
standpoint of what they call vestigial organ, which evolutionists
claim are vestigial organ, are part humans which have cease
to have any function or part or action in the human body. They're not doing now anything,
they say, toward the functioning of the human body. And they would
name among them organs like the appendix and the tonsils and
the adenoid and the thymes and the pineal glands and such like,
they say they were useful in another animal, not any service
therefore to human being. Evolutionists often claim over
150 such organs in humans which were left over from our animal
ancestor. Now we know that such organs
as the tonsil and the appendix are useful, they help fight disease. Besides, where were these organs
in our ancestor? Do reptiles have appendix and
tonsil? And it is opposed to evolution,
for though evolution was developing new things, not casting the old
ones aside would seem a contradiction. Then thirdly, evolutionists have
three other sure examples of evolution, eh? The peppered moth
in England, which they say there was a change of color, evolution
in that moth. B, the duck-billed platypus,
which is a critter found in Australia, a rather strange critter, a mammal
with fur, which then also nurses its young. Hatch is young from
egg-like reptiles, has webbed feet, duckbill pockets in its
jaws in order that it might carry food, and poison spurs on its
hind legs. It is indeed a rather unique
creature. C, and I don't guarantee to pronounce
this right, there is that bird called something like Archaeopteryx
or something like that, which the dictionary calls the world's
oldest bird, which evolutionists call a reptile bird. And yet
the peppered moth is explained by the industrial age of revolution. The platypus is just a unique
creature whose fossils are exactly the same as the modern version
when one is found. while the Archaeopter is now
classified as a true bird in every sense of the word. So then
fourthly, let's consider the various men that have been found
around the world as proof of evolution. Nebraska man. Peking Man, Neanderthal Man,
Piltdown Man, and Java Ape Man. Now all of these were hailed
as proof of evolution and a link between apes and human beings. But all of them proved to be
frauds and deception, and in many cases, claiming them to
be very very ancient finds which they were not at all. So let's
look at them individually quickly. Nebraska man, let's consider
him first. He was found in Nebraska in 1922
and if you remember was part of the Scopes Monkey Trial in
1925 in the state of Tennessee. in which there were, quote, experts,
unquote, confronted Mr. William Jennings Bryan with what
they said was overwhelming evidence of evolution and establishing
a race of prehistoric people in the United States of America. Now what was the evidence for
this prehistoric race of people? Was it a skeleton? Was it a fossilized
human? No, it was a tooth. And I'm telling you the truth.
It was a tooth. And it turned out that it was
the tooth of an extinct pig or hog whose skeleton was found. Scott Hughes talks about that
in his book, The Collapse of Evolution, on page 98. And yet,
get this, with a tooth, a pig tooth, they drew a picture of
what they imagined the man must have looked like. Then they gave
him a family. They put a club in his hand,
put hairy features all over him. All of this from a pig's tooth,
mind you, found in Nebraska. And yet, this has appeared in
some textbooks that are used in the school. Now, another hoax
involved what they call southwest Colorado man, which turned out
to be, this time, the tooth of a horse. Thus, the evolutionist
can construct ape-like men from some kind of tooth. but then
be the Irish Piltdown Man. He was constructed from the jawbone
and a skull, claimed to be a half a million years old, and surefire
proof of evolution. When the bones were tested for
fluoride, it was determined that they were recent. upon closer
examination, it was discovered that the bones were doctored
with iron salts to make them appear old and that the teeth
on it had actually been filed down. In other words, a complete
fraud, an absolute deception for evolutionists determined
to manufacture evidence if they have to. And then see, let's
think of Neanderthal man. About 1900 in Dusseldorf, Germany,
in a cave, found that it was hailed as a semi-erect, barrel-chested,
brutish fellow, a link between apes and men. Turned out, it
was a true human skeleton with a very bad case of rickets and
arthritis. Today, Neanderthal man is considered
as a human. D, as late as May 14, 1984, a United Press International
press release hailed a skull fragment found in Spain as, quote,
the oldest human fossil ever found in Europe, unquote. A three-day symposium was gathered
and was scheduled in Spain that they might display horsey man. Turned out the bone was the skull
of a donkey that they had hailed. Duane Gish said, an ape's jaw
in 1912, a pig's tooth in 1922, a donkey skull in the late 80s
makes it doubtful that there is any sign in search for man's
fossil ancestry." Scott Hughes said in his book, The Collapse
of Evolution, page 98 again, now resourceful and imaginative
scientific expert, can be at times give one tooth not necessarily
human and they can create an entire race of prehistoric humanity
out of a tooth, unquote. Which opens the door for me to
say most of these experts, as they are called, are frauds. We hear of expert testimony about
this or that. We hear he's an expert in his
or her field, modern experts, and they spout off their psychiatry,
psychology. But what a fraud on impressionable
young school kids to create evidence for evolution from simply a bone,
a tooth, or a skull of an animal, then draw an entire evolutionary
process from it that here's what the human family once looked
like. You should know that the pictures
in textbooks are deliberate frauds designed to destroy the idea
of God who created man in his own image. And it is not science,
but it is deliberate fraud, a race of prehistoric people from a
tooth, a bone, or a skull. David was right. I am fearfully
and wonderfully made. not evolved but made, created,
formed by the design and the oversight of God. He ascribes
it to the work of God. Not from apes did David think
that he sprung up, but from those made in the image of God. God considered David a human
being from his very conception. He was not at one time jelly
protoplasm, at another a fish with gill slits, and finally
evolving into a human embryo. Nor was David the next of kin
of an ape or a monkey. Man's development in the womb
does not parallel evolution, does not pass from amoeba to
human in nine short months of time. I am fearfully and wonderfully
made from conception to birth. to growth, to maturity, trillions
of cells, a fascinating, almost beyond our comprehension, nervous
system, an immune system, the marvel of blood, how it circulates
and feeds our body. An eye to see, and what a marvel
it is. The hand, one of the most amazing
machines you'll ever see. The heart to pump the blood.
A liver to cleanse out the impurities of the body. and ear to hear
even the things of God. A brain, a mind, an intellect,
a living soul, a moral consciousness have we. A great, great gap between
apes or monkeys and men. Man, therefore, is the creation
of God. He did not evolve, but was created
in the image of Almighty God, an image which is so visible
as to dispel the idea of evolution. And the strongest charge of all,
evolution is not science, not scientific, for they never have
seen a clear-cut case of evolution. Darwin admitted he could find
no evolutionary fossils, no half this, half that in the fossil
record. There's nothing to be found there
in the record of fossil. We are fearfully, wonderfully
made by the power, wisdom, and will of our God.