June 19, 2018

Is Evolution Scientific?

By Tom Bunting

When someone speaks up against the theory of evolution they are immediately cast aside as an unscientific
ignoramus. Is it true that to reject this theory one must be both ignorant and unscientific? Are only the
intelligent people on the side of evolution? Is the theory of evolution really scientific?

We are told by evolutionists that to gain an understanding of what the theory of organic evolution is and
what it implies we must distinguish between this theory, which deals with the 'fact' of evolution, and those
theories which deal with the cause of evolution. We are warned by evolutionists not to confuse "Darwinism"
and the theory of evolution. They are not supposed to be "the same at all. Yet, our intelligence is impugned
if we reject Darwinism. To be sure that we approach the problem from the viewpoint of the evolutionist we are
admonished to know that the theory of natural selection (Darwinism) is simply one attempt to explain the cause
of evolution. There are some things, they say, with which the theory of evolution is not concerned. It is not
concerned with the origin of life; neither does it presume to tell us what form or forms life first appeared on
earth. This theory does not deny the existence of a Creator. So they say! Then go right ahead and print pictures
in science books of some evolutionists impression of the origin of life along with pictures of forms of life which
they believe first appeared on earth. They say that this theory does not deny the existence of a Creator and then
turn right around and cast doubt on the story of creation. Why bother if they're not concerned with the "origin
of life" ? What they say and what they do are obviously quite different! Maybe Parker and Clark don't presume
to tell us what form or forms life first appeared but many evolutionists do.

Organic evolution is defined by John M. Coulter: "The study of organic evolution deals only with the
succession of forms, with the production of new forms by previously existing ones. It has nothing to say
concerning origins. How the numerous series of living forms may have originated is certainly beyond the reach
of biological science as yet. When one goes beyond the observed changes and tries to trace the successions back
to their source, he is in the region of speculation, and outside the boundaries of science." (Heredity and
Eugenics, Castel, Coulter, Davenport, East and Tower; p. 8.) In this definition much depends upon how they
use this word "forms." Do they have reference to the color? By succession of forms do they mean from black,
to brown, to reddish brown, to red, to Yellow, to white as it is controlled by the laws of genetics? If that is
organic evolution, I know of no one that objects! However, I hardly think that is what they had in mind. If they
had in mind the succession from one phylum to another, then objection can be made on all sides. The trouble,
with the evolutionist today is as Coulter stated, "going beyond the observed changes . . . and they are in the
region of speculation, outside. the boundaries of science.

God created every "kind" of being, If we study only the observed changes and stay out of the region of
speculation then science will strengthen this fact. Man has classified the animals into genus, species, phylum,
etc. God classified them as "kind." When we observe that there is a change in species (and there are minute
number) then it is evident that these are of the same "kind." The few number of changes in species and none
in phylum is evidence of the law of procreation established by the Creator in the very beginning. Everyone
bringeth forth after its kind IS still a fact of science, in spite of the theory of evolution!

Comparative Anatomy

Parker and Clark list the following as salient facts concerning evolution. "All vertebrates from fish to man
have an internal, dorsal, spinal column composcd of a number of bony vertebrae joined to a bony skull which,
together with the vertegral column, houses the central nervous system." (Introduction to Animal Biology, p.
486.) Now isn't that something; man and fish both have a back bone so we have the same ancestors! If that is
scientific reasoning . . . Oh, well! Have you ever heard such powerful logic? just as good (I think even better);
fish live in water and man can't, therefore we do not have a common ancestor! Surely the similarity is not the
best evolutionists have to offer?

Another argument of the evolutionist is that the common ancestor idea is shown by the presence of vestigial
organs. A vestigial organ is supposed to be one that is retained in the organism from past ancestors but now
has degenerated to the point it is of no use. I wonder how they determine if that particular organ is going up
or down the evolutionary ladder? Well, anyway, they say it is degenerating! If there are vestigial organs then
it is logical to assume that there would also be nascent organs if the theory of evolution be true. Nascent organs
are not mentioned in a gathering of evolutionists for the simple reason that the lack of nascent structures and
organs is evidence against evolution and in favor of special creation. Every year the list of vestigial organs is
decreasing as uses are found for those once supposed to be vestigial organs. Is it possible that those which
remain today have a use which science has not yet discovered? I wonder if those teaching so strongly about
vestigial organs realize that just because an organ is not being used, or we do not know the use, does not
necessarily mean that it has no use.


In this field of study there is a controversy around the "biogenetic law" also known as the "recapitulation
theory." This theory is that each individual animal in its development from egg to adult form passes through
stages representative of the evolution of the species. That there is some resemblance we do not deny. But this
resemblance is not between the embryo of one species to the adult of another, rather it is a resemblance of both
at the embryo level. This I suppose could be expected since both start from a fertilized egg and have
considerable likeness also at the end of their development.

Many suppose, as did Haeckel that the embryo goes through all the stages of its evolutionary development.
However, many supposed stages came too early, others too late, some not at all. An example of this is the
development of the teeth and tongue of the mammals.

"It was expected," writes Keith, "That the embryo would recapitulate the features of all its ancestors from
the lowest to the highest forms of the animal kingdom. Now that the appearances of the embryo at all ages are
known . . . the human embryo at no stage is anthropoid in appearance." (The Human Body, 1912, p. 94);
quoted in Is Evolution Proved, p. 270). Keith, an evolutionist, admits disappointment because the ernbryo does
not recapitulate the stages of supposed ancestral development. Contrary to evolutionists, embryology is one
of the reasons we reject the theory of evolution and we commend the study of embryology to all.

In this theory of recapitulation they select the organs that claim to have some resemblance between the
embryo and adults of another species; while the organs that show no resemblance are ignored. Is that scientific
to select only the data that fits one's preconceived theory? Science is supposed to weigh all the evidence
impartially. For this reason we say that evolutionists are unscientific, they completely ignore all the evidence
against their theory.

The arches and furrows in the neck of the human embryo are supposed to resemble the gill and clefts of
a fish. "However, the arch develops into the lower jaw (which it does not do in the fish), second forms the
middle and outer ear (which the fish does not have). None of them form gills." (Modern Science and Christian
, p. 94.)

One of my professors in a state college was insisting that evolution was implied in the theory of
recapitulation. I wonder if it ever occured to such people that just because the embryos of two or more
vertebrates look alike does not mean that they are alike, nor that they have had a common ancestor. The truth
of the matter is that the science of embryology lays a death blow to one of the chief arguments of evolution!
Even though the embryo of the chick, rabbit, and man look alike; the embryo of the chick will develop into a
chicken every time! The embryo of the rabbit will be a rabbit every time. The embryo of the man will be a man
every time. Each one after its "kind." This law of procreation will not vary now, nor has it ever changed. This
is a recognized scientific fact that the evolutionist will not, nor dare not, deny! Like all scientific facts which
are contrary to the theory of evolution they simply ignore it. This is further proof that the theory is not scientific
for they are afraid to study both sides of the controversy. The first time the evolutionist takes the egg of a
chicken and under nine months incubation develops a man, I will concede they have some evidence to support
their theory. Or if they can take the embryo of man and in 21 days stop the process and have a chicken, I will
agree they have some evidence. However, as long as the embryo of a chick continues to develop into a chicken;
a rabbit to a rabbit; and a man to a man; the scientific evidence is all against the "theory of recapitulation" and
evolution. Science in no way denies special creation, in fact it renders a great service in proving the Bible to
be true. If the theory of recapitulation is the best that evolution has to offer, then they have nothing but their
own imaginative prejudiced mind.


Like all other phases of science the fossil evidence has been so manipulated by evolutionists that a great
majority of the writings do not give an unbiased account of the facts. Those fossils that may tend to lend some
support to their presupposed theory are emphasized while the unfavorable fossils are completelv ignored. They
ignore the Calaveras skull found in 1866, and the skeletal remains of a comparative modern type in
Castenedolo. Italy. There are several fossils of a modern type of an earlier date than Pithecanthropus and
Sanarithropus, but these are largely ignored. These have to be ignored for if not, they would destroy the
evidence based upon the 'Java man' and the Sinanthropus from China. Evolutionists would like to pass these
examples aside with a wave of the hand. "What difference does it make," they would say. Simply this, when
you recognize that the Galley Hill man was to have for his ancestors, according to evolution, the
Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus but he makes his appearance several thousand years ahead of them it
presents a most difficult and embarrassing problem for those who hold to the theory of evolution. It is the
responsibilitv of the evolutionist to show that the Galley Hill man was not contemporary with the strata in
which he was found. But instead they simply ignore such examples, and thereby testify to all that evolution is
only a preconceived idea originating in the mind of some.

We often hear something about a "missing link" as if there was only one, but the fact is there's the absence
of the whole chain! Even one of their links which they have had for years was found to be a forgery! (The
Piltdown Forgery published in England). And so goes evolution! With each passing year there seems to be
another "missing link" missing. With the growing advancement of scientific knowledge we expect them in the
near future to throw awav the whole broken chain, as the theory of evolution was based solely on prejudices
of the mind.

Why the Popularity of Such a Theory?

"If the theory of evolution is so unscientific," someone says, "then why the popularity of such a theory?"
Did you know that if a teacher of science should make known publicly that he did not accept the theory of
evolution he would be anathematized. It has been completely out of fashion for one to deny this preposterous
theory. In recent years it would have been plain suicide for an American or British biologist to declare himself
a believer in special creation or deny the theory of evolution. We are glad to say that this tendency seems to
be slowly changing. However, there is still room for improvement. The B.B.C. would not allow any of its
speakers to attack this theory. The school text books treat it as if it were already proven. Is it any wonder that
biologists that have doubted the theory of evolution have up to now, kept their doubts to themselves. Lunn says,
"in view of the growing scepticism among scientists it seems to me that it is a crime against science to allow
evolution to be represented in most schools as a proved and demonstrated fact." (Lunn, Editory, Is Evolution
Proved" p. 333). We hope that with the increased emphasis on studies in the field of science we will see, a
renewed vigor and enthusiasm, and a complete unbiased analyses of the theory of evolution. We have no doubt
but that an unprejudiced investigation will reveal the long overlooked and ignored fallacies of the thoory of

Truth Magazine IV:5, pp. 22-24
February 1960