Mathematical Probability is a branch or division of mathematics by
means of which the odds in favor or against the occurrence of any
event may be definitely computed, and the measure of the probability
or improbability exactly determined. Its conclusions approximate
certainty and reveal how wild the guesses of evolutionists are.
The evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical
probability. It is so improbable that one and only one species out of
3,000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the
case. All had the same start, many had similar environments. Yet
witness the motly products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk,
scorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm,
and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize,
mushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc. All developed
from one germ, all in some way related. Mark well the difference in
size between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and the
difference in intellect between man and the lobster!
While all had the same start, only one species out of 3,000,000
reached the physical and intellectual and moral status of man. Why
only one? Why do we not find beings equal or similar to man, developed
from the cunning fox, the faithful dog, the innocent sheep, or the
hog, one of the most social of all animals? Or still more from the
many species of the talented monkey family? Out of 3,000,000 chances,
is it not likely that more than one species would attain the status of
man?
"Romanes, a disciple of Darwin, after collecting the manifestations of
intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals,
found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15
months old." Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to
reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much
conscience. Why have not many species filled the great gap between man
and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male?
Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be
males but one? To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found by
evolutionists belong to males except one. Strange! If 3,000,000
pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall
with heads up, save one? The Revolutionary war, out of 3,000,000
people, developed one great military chieftain, but many more
approximating his ability; one or more great statesmen with all
gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others
little inferior; but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or
10,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished
beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far
ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other
species. It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the
measureless distance between the monkey and man. It violates
mathematical probability.
We have a right to expect, in many species and in large numbers, all
gradations of animals between the monkey and man in size, intellect,
and spirituality. Where are the anthropoids and their descendants
alleged to have lived during the 2,000,000 years of man's evolution?
They can not be found living or dead. They never existed. Creation
alone explains the great gap. What signs have we that other species
will ever approximate, equal or surpass man in attainments? Can we
hope that, in the far distant future, a baboon will write an epic
equal to Milton's Paradise Lost, or a bull-frog compose an oratorio
surpassing Handel's Messiah?
We find all gradations of species in size from the largest to the
smallest. Why not the same gradation in _intelligence, conscience
and spirituality_? The difference in brain, capacity and
intelligence between man and the ape is 50% greater than the
difference in size between the elephant and the housefly. There are
many thousands of species to fill the gap in size. Why not many
thousands to fill the greater gap in intelligence? Evidently no
species became human by growth. Many species like the amoeba, and the
microscopic disease germs, have not developed at all but are the same
as ever. Many other species of the lower forms of life have remained
unchanged during the ages. If the tendency is to develop into the
higher forms of life, why do we have so many of those lower forms
which have remained stationary? Growth, development, evolution, is
not, by any means, a universal rule.
Evolution is not universally true in any sense of the term. Why are
not fishes _now_ changing into amphibians, amphibians into
reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and monkeys into man? If
growth, development, evolution, were the rule, there would be no lower
order of animals for all have had sufficient time to develop into the
highest orders. Many have remained the same; some have deteriorated.
And now we have a new amendment to the theory of evolution: We are
told that the huge Saurians (reptiles) overworked the development
idea, and became too large and cumbersome, and hence are now
extinct. Prof. Cope says:--"Retrogression in nature is as well
established as evolution." It seems that man also has, contrary to all
former conceptions, reached the limit of his development, if he has
not already gone too far.
Prof. R. S. Lull says, (Readings p. 95) "Man's physical evolution has
virtually ceased, but in so far as any change is being effected, it is
largely retrogressive. Such changes are: Reduction of hair and teeth,
and of hand skill; and dulling of the senses of sight, smell and
hearing upon which active creatures depend so largely for safety.
That sort of charity which fosters the physically, mentally and
morally feeble, and is thus contrary to the law of natural selection,
must also, in the long run, have an adverse effect upon the race." Too
bad that Christian charity takes care of the feeble, endangering
evolution, and the doctrine that the weak have no rights that the
strong are bound to respect! We are not surprised that Nietzsche,
whose insane philosophy that _might is right_, helped to bring on
the world war, died in an insane asylum.
After all, evolution is not progress and development, but
retrogression and deterioration as well.
But evolutionists, compelled by the requirements of their theory, have
added another amendment, which will seem ridiculous to some:
Environment has had an evolution as well as plants and animals! Having
denied the existence of God, or his active control and interference,
they must account for environment by evolution. Listen:--"Henderson
points out that environment, no less than organisms, has had an
evolution. Water, for example, has a dozen unique properties that
condition life. Carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to life. The
properties of the ocean are so beautifully adjusted to life that we
marvel at the exactness of its fitness. [Yet no design!]. Finally, the
chemical properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are equally unique
and unreplaceable. The evolution of environment and the evolution of
organisms have gone hand in hand." And all by blind chance! Is it not
a thousand times better to believe that all things were created by an
all-wise and all powerful God? How could a lifeless environment come
by evolution? If we would listen to them, we would be told that the
ocean, the atmosphere, heat, light, electricity, all the elements, the
starry heavens, and all the universe, and religion itself, came by
evolution, some grudgingly granting that God _may_ have created
matter in the beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe that one species and only one out of
3,000,000 by evolution should attain the status of mankind; and that
one species and only one species of the primates should reach the
heights of intelligence, reason, conscience and spirituality. Huxley
says, "There is an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite,
between the lowest man and the highest beast."
To declare that our species alone crossed this measureless gulf, while
our nearest relatives have not even made a fair start, is an affront
to the intelligence of the thoughtful student. It does fierce violence
to the doctrine of mathematical probability. It could not have
happened.