Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

No one who is informed will array the Bible against science. It is pseudo-science, not science that contradicts the Bible. The proper statement of the correct thesis would be: The Bible and Science versus the theories of evolution.

The theory of evolution teaches that matter made mind. But the truth holds to the absolute power of mind over matter, and the facts show that matter was made for mind and kept for mind. The world is full of illustrations of these facts. By the inventive genius of man lightning has been chained; the power of steam has been controlled; the strength of the lion is made weak; the energy of the atom is being utilized all by the power of the mind. If matter made mind, then matter created something greater than itself. Who is the scientist that believes that?

Evolution teaches that inorganic matter became at once organic matter, and that organic matter evolved into man. This means that inorganic matter became vegetable life; vegetable life became animal life; and animal life became man. Might as well say that the magnificent granite capitol of Texas, which was once in the granite hills of Llano county, "without outside help", and "by forces resident in itself," and "unaided by external force," formed itself into the stately capitol building; and some future day this domed and marble-columned mammoth building will become legislators and governors of the states and finally the presidents of the nation.

On this hypothesis we may develop a theory of the evolution of an automotive vehicle. The first two-cylinder Thrash sprang into existence from a junk pile, which evolved from mineral substances, and gradually developed into a 4-cylinder Ford, then a 6-cylinder Chevrolet, an 8-cylinder Buick, a 12-cylinder Cadillac, and finally a 16-cylinder Rolls-Royce but all this "without outside help," and "unaided by external force," and by "powers resident in itself." That would be what evolution teaches in reference to the single cell theory, the origin of species, and the descent of man.

Let the evolutionist find a start on a change from the inorganic to the organic; from the vegetable to the animal; then from the animal to the man. From the beginning of history all of these have been the same in their respective classifications, with man created as man, existing as man, and with power over all flesh.

It is a known fact that animal cells and vegetable cells are radically different in structure. A simple illustration shows this to be a fact. Organic nourishment will destroy vegetable cells; but inorganic nourishment will destroy animal cells. For an example, put rotted manure from the stable in a potato hill and it will produce better potatoes; put it in the cow to produce better butter, and see the result! On the same principle, feed raw meat to a dog and it will make him fat; but put it on a cabbage plant, and it will die.

If animal life comes from vegetable life, why is the life in the vegetable kingdom the same in all examples, but in the animal kingdom this is not true. The tiny blade of grass and the giant oak tree are nourished in exactly the same way but it is not so of the ant and the elephant or of a doodle-bug and a man.

These simple facts of nature show that the theory of evolution violates the law of cell structure. And it violates the law of kinds -- the law that "like begets like." If animal life comes from vegetable life, explain why hair grows on the cow and the horse, wool on the sheep, and feathers on the goose they all eat the same food. And what became of the law of development? If animal life came from vegetable life explain why and tell when the development became static. What power started the incline and prevented the decline?

Then, what about the law of resistance -- chop on a tree and there is no resistance; but try it on a mule -- pick out his hind leg for the first test -- and see, or feel, the result, and experience the difference. Remove the skin from the hand and it will heal; but remove the bark from the tree and it will die. Also there is the law of absorption. The tree and the plant drink the rain and the sunshine and grow; the rain on the earth refreshes it; but let it rain on a horse, a dog or a man and there is no like result. The theory of evolution violates these simple laws of nature, the law of development, and the law of cell structure, the law of resistance, the law of absorption, the law of kinds.

There is also the law of mutation. This law of mutation operates only within the species, or kind. There are many examples of this law; take for instance the chicken world -- but there is no example of a chicken being developed into something that is not a chicken. That would be transmutation, or crossing over the line of species, a thing for which not one example has ever been produced. When the evolutionist finds a cat that lays eggs and hatches a litter of kittens, and a hen that gives birth to a brood of chicks, that will be a start toward the task of proving the possibility of the transmutation theory. This one fact stands in the way of the evolutionary theory.

With reference to kinds and varieties -- there are only a few kinds, but there are many varieties. In the feline family, besides the common cat, are the tiger, the panther, the pumas, the lion. In the canine faultily are dogs, wolves, foxes and jackals. In the equine family are horses, zebras, quagga and the like. To the mastodon belong the elephant, rhinoceros and hippopotamus. Infidels carp at the idea that two of all the animals on the earth were housed in the ark, but the Bible does not say that. It says two of each kind! It does not say varieties, it does not even say species it says kind. There are runny varieties, but few kinds. There are five races of mankind, all of which can be crossed in marriage, and the product continues to bear seed after its kind. This is not true of animals. The mule, for instance, is a hybrid and cannot produce its kind; but he is a stronger animal than either ancestor. If all animals are from the same parent stock there is no explanation for these and many other examples in the laws of nature. It is proof that intelligence, not fortuity, was the guiding principle in the creation of all forms and phases of life.