Evolution - Fact Or Fiction? By E.G. Cook

Evolution - Fact Or Fiction?
E. G. Cook
Former Pastor - Philadelphia Baptist Church
Birmingham , Alabama
(Now In Glory)     I believe that anything that is taught to our children in our schools should receive careful, thoughtful consideration, And since evolution is taught in our schools, we should seriously, and wholeheartedly investigate all the facts connected with this subject. Furthermore, we should do this investigating with an open mind. No investigation has ever been worth the trouble if those who are doing the investigating have a closed mind when they begin the investigation, So then, with an open mind, let us investigate this great subject. And, if the facts are there to prove evolution to be a true teaching, I beg of you to join with me in contending for the teaching of evolution with all your might. On the other hand, if our investigation fails to produce any hard, cold facts to back up this teaching, I beg of you to join with me in contending for the truth concerning evolution with all your might. Who can say this is an unfair proposition?
    And since there is so much that I do not know about this great subject of evolution, much of this investigation will have to be in the form of questions that I hope some good evolution teacher will be so kind as to help us with. All true scientists deal only in hard, cold facts. Pseudo-scientists deal in suppositions.
    Naturally we would want this evolution teacher to give us hard, cold facts. We can do our own supposing.
    To begin our study on this subject, we understand that quite a few species of spiders cannot survive without their webs. These webs are the means by which they catch their food. Now the thing I need help on is, how did these spiders survive during the millions of years it took for them to learn how to spin their web?
    In Central and South America there are many small fish averaging about eight inches in length which swim on the surface of the water. These fish have one pair of eyes just below the water line that enables them to see their enemies down in the water beneath them. Then they have another pair of eyes just above the water line that enables them to see their enemies up above them. Now if these fish (anableps) developed their eyes above the water line first, their fish eating enemies in the water beneath them would have devoured them in short order. On the other hand, if they developed their eyes beneath the water line first, the cranes, the gulls, and other enemies above them would have made them extinct long ago. Will someone tell us how the anableps solved this problem?
    The angler fish (so called because of their built-in fishing pole) may grow to weigh as much as seventy pounds. They are very poor swimmers, but they can waddle up to a rock or other object and change their color to coincide with that object When these fish get hungry their fishing pole protrudes from their mouth. On the end of this fishing pole there is a delicious looking live bait. And when some unsuspecting fish swallows this bait he is immediately sucked into the angler fish's big mouth like dust and lint into a vacuum cleaner. Now, since this fish is too slow and too awkward and clumsy for him to catch his food as other fish do, will some one tell us how he survived all those millions of years while he was developing his fishing pole?
    The duckbilled platypus (flatfoot) of Australia has a bill that looks like a duck's bill, but it is soft and pliable, and very sensitive. It has a tail like a beaver's tail, and lays eggs like a snake or turtle. But it is warm blooded and feeds its young by means of milk from the mother. Though Mrs. Platypus feeds her young by means of milk from her own body, you cannot really call her a mammal because she lays eggs like a reptile. And though she lays eggs like a reptile, you cannot call her a reptile because she is a warm blooded creature. Will some one please explain just how evolution got so mixed up in this case?
    Some evolutionists tell us that their most infallible proof of evolution is that found in the case of the horse. They begin this proof with Eohippus Borealis which means the northern dawn-horse. This distinguished Mr. Eohippus Borealis they tell us was the beginning of our modern day horse. And, if you have the glowing imagination of a three year old child, you just might find some few resemblance between them. The fossil remains of this little cat like animal some thirteen inches tall is found in the stratum known as the Eocene age. But the amazing thing about it is that alongside the first fossil remains of Eohippi's Borealis there are the fossil remains of the fully developed horse. They show up at the same time, grazing in the same pasture, so to speak. And, since that is true, how can anyone say with a straight face that one of them evolved from the other?
    Where is the proof? Why does your evolution teacher not tell you that the horse was already there when the first Eohippus Borealis was found? Can it be that he had rather you did not know the truth about it? If the horse had not shown up in the fossil remains until a later stratum, we would not have so much proof that this teaching is the fabrication of a frustrated mind.
    The mallee fowl, one species of the megapodes of Australia and New Guinea, presents another problem to me. The male of this "brush turkey" digs a fifteen foot hole in the ground some three or four feet deep in his arid, semi-desert habitat. The female lays her eggs in this hole. They are covered over with dirt and fermented vegetable matter and are hatched by means of the heat generated by this fermented, or rotting vegetable matter. But here where the climate is very dry, the leaves do not ferment naturally. So Mr. Mallee Fowl digs the hole in the fall. And during the winter he gathers leaves and puts them in this hole. Then in early spring he covers these leaves with about two feet of dirt. 'This causes the leaves to rot. About a month later the eggs are laid and the hole filled up with dirt. And though the temperature in his part of the world varies as much as 80 to 90 degrees while the eggs are hatching, Mr. Mallee Fowl never allows the temperature of those eggs to change. He keeps them at 92 degrees at all times until they are hatched. This he does by removing some of the dirt if there is danger of the eggs getting too warm, or by putting on more dirt if there is danger that the eggs may get too cool. Now the thing that puzzles me no little is, how did the mallee fowl get the eggs to hatch while he was learning how big and how deep to dig that hole, while he was learning how to make leaves rot in a dry climate and, and while he was learning how to determine the exact temperature of those eggs some three or four feet down in the ground? Please remember, he had to get them to hatch some way or the mallee fowl would have become extinct long ago. And, if he was able to get them to hatch without all that trouble, why did he change to this troublesome and laborious way?
    Evolutionist teachers tell us that changes come about by what is called the survival of the fittest, that is, that the stronger members of a species survive while the weaker ones die out. Now this sounds reasonable. And in the main we can all subscribe to that teaching. But there are instances when this teaching is not true. For instance, the Amazon ants are unable to feed themselves, build their nests, or care for their young. They cannot even take their own bath. In other words, these ants are completely helpless. An entomologist ran an experiment to see if this were really true. He took 30 of these Amazon ants and put them in a glassed-in box in which he had placed plenty of soil and plenty of food. In less than two days half these ants died, none of them had eaten a bite of food nor attempted to build a nest The entomologist then put one slave ant in the box. This slave ant hurriedly fed the hungry ants and soon had every-thing in order. These slave ants have been known to kill their own queen thereby dooming the life of their colony in order that they might be more able to serve the Amazon ants. We would have to say this is the survival of the helpless at the expense of the fittest. Please remember, evolution is not a charitable institution. So how can this be made to fit in with the teaching of evolution?
    Charles Darwin, whom evolutionists seem to worship, said, "This ant is absolutely dependent on its slaves; without their aid, the species would certainly become extinct in a single year." (Origin of Species Page 255).
    If space would permit in a small tract, I would like to go into detail concerning the futile efforts that have been made by evolutionists in their mad scramble to try to find their so-called missing link between the ape and man. There is the Nebraska man which was created from just one little old tooth that later turned out to be the tooth of a wild pig. Then there is the Java man that was formed from three or four bones one of which they thought was part of this prehistoric man's skull. It later turned out that this poor fellow's skull was only a part of an elephant's knee cap. There are others just as disgusting to intelligent people.
    Your evolution teacher knows full well that it is utterly impossible for acquired characteristics to be transmitted to the next generation. They know that if a man gets a leg cut off in an accident his children will still be born with two legs. They know that if you cut a dogs tail off, his puppies will still be born with tails. There is just no way under the sun for a change that takes place in man or beast after they are born to be passed on to the next generation. A cat can only give birth to kittens. A dog can only give birth to puppies. And an ape, believe it or not, can only give birth to little apes. That being true, the only way for an ape to produce a man would be to create one, and even Judy on Daktari does not have sense enough to do that.
    So, boys and girls, there is absolutely no way under the sun to bridge the gap between the ape and man. The chromosome make-up of their somatic cells are different. So is the chromosome make up of their reproductive cells. And though the evolutionists try to argue that the chromosome count has nothing to do with reproduction, we challenge them to cross breed any of the animals with a different number of them. The gorilla has 48 chromosomes and the barbary ape has 42. If the number of chromosomes have nothing to do with reproduction why do they not present us with a half gorilla and half barbary ape to prove it?
    And since man has 46 chromosomes and the gorilla has 48 it is self-evident that there can be no cross breeding between them. The evolutionists cannot deny that fact. The evolutionists of the world would give a million dollars for a creature half man and half ape any day in the year. They know evolution is an utter impossibility. They are not fools, but sometimes it looks as if they thought our boys and girls are. Then, since they know evolution is an utter impossibility, why do they continue to hold to such teaching?
    If I were to tell you why they do it, you would not believe it. So let us go to them for the answer. Sir Arthur Keith says "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Professor D.M.S. Watson of the University of London said, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." What all these highfalutin words mean, boys and girls, is that they know that evolution can never be proved, in fact, that it is impossible. But they must either hold on to this impossible thing Or else accept the fact that God made all things that were made just as He said He did. And they are just too smart to believe that. So they are just too smart.
    In Charles Darwin's last days he said to his good friend, Lady Hope of Northfield, England concerning his earlier writings on evolution, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wild fire. People made a religion of them."
    When Lady Hope went in that day to see her old friend he was lying in bed reading the Bible. When she ask him what he was reading he said, "Still Hebrews. The Royal Book, I call it." When these evolutionists split hell wide open they may be somewhat surprised when they fail to find their little god, Charles Darwin, there to discuss evolution with them For the young, healthy, God-hating and Bible-denying evolutionist, evolution may be a pretty good thing to live by, but it sure is an awful thing to die by. As for me, I prefer to believe that "From (or in) the beginning of the creation God made them male and female," Mk. 10:6. That is absolutely the only way man could possibly get here So please remember, boys and girls, the thing the evolutionist hates most about the creation is the Creator Himself.