The "survival of the fittest" has fooled millions. It is as convincing as a cast iron lion in the dark.

Here is a little question for the professor:

According to the program, the creature fartherest back in the surviving process is the amoeba. It has been "survived" more than any other form of life on earth, (if this survival law is not foolishness) yet it keeps right on living though numberless "survivors" have become extinct. Its numbers are limited only by infinity.

The entire fabric of evolution depends on the false theory that what they call "higher" and "later" form of life, are better fitted to survive. It takes for granted a presumption that life has evolved for hundreds of millions of years from amoeba to man because each "higher" form was better able to survive than the one beneath it.

What spoils this "bedtime story" is the fact that stubborn "lower" forms persist where the "higher" forms cannot. Is it the truth or a lie, that numberless billions of one celled creatures can be dried up, frozen up, buried in the mud or blown away and come right back and do business?

Ask any school boy who has studied biology.

Of course there is an element of truth in this survival theory. Old mammy toad will leave a thousand eggs in a pool. Averages indicate that only one can live to the second year. Now it is obvious that if one little tadpole can outwit all the foes and get all the food when there is only enough for one, he has quite the best chance to make his mother a grandma.

But, the spryest little fellow may be the one first within reach of a foe. The most cautious one may be the one that goes without its dinner. With death lurking on four sides, above and below, I will pick the average tadpole for the winner. If they were more helpless or stupid a million years ago, it is difficult to understand how any of them lived.

No doubt if black and white rabbits were turned loose to run wild, they would, in time, breed back to a common color that was protective, and that is about all that "survival" can do for them. Some student will say, "Surely, the fastest rabbits will survive and raise the average of speed.'' This seems plausible until you consider that their natural foes use strategy and stealth as much as speed. Speed in a rabbit begets over-confidence and does damage when it makes short turns in the briers.

Now suppose this survival theory could add speed, size, and sagacity, that would not be evolution because the rabbit would still be a rabbit. If "survival" could give the rabbit an equipment like a skunk, that would be evolution for the rabbit, but it would be EVIL-ution for everything else. Imagine, if you can, how soon other life would be driven out. Now evolution has had millions of years (they say) and millions of chance to develop in some creature an equipment that would destroy competitors, but each form of life has enough equipment and not too much. It would take a board of scientists a thousand years to figure out so nice a balance as we sec in nature. Would evolution do that?

It is a vital part of the law of "survival" that no creature can develop an equipment that hinders it or helps its foes.

Is that true, professor?

If the so called "higher" forms of life are so handicapped in the struggle for food and mates and progeny and against fire, frost, famine, flood and foes that "lower" forms are not quickly driven out, then it argues that they were created that way. Never mind what some propagandist says about it; use your common sense. You can see that one bird lays but one egg, another 16. One animal is short on speed, another on wit, another on defense, another on the variety it can eat, another on progeny, so that a wonderful balance is preserved.  (Job 39:13-17)

I quite agree with evolutionism that water life appeared first. The Bible says so. We believe it pleased God to create life in the order he did. The evolution-ist must begin as near nothing as possible so that it will minimize the miracle of getting the first life and not overwork the necessity of creation. Having presumed one invisible life, the next thing to presume is that through all the ages nature put a premium on the more complicated forms and gave a bonus of life and progeny to those that developed brain, speed, defense, etc.

That is exactly what evolution would do if evolution were a fact.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A FACT.

Every advantage has some corresponding handicap, disproving evolution.

On this proposition I am willing to stake the fight.

Let us begin at the beginning.

There is a greatly magnified picture of a little bag of soup that they say started the trouble. The first figure shows the little ancestor getting ready to have a puckering in its equator. Figure 2 shows the furniture divided and moved, half in each end. Figure 3 shows it broken in two without hurting it. How it could know when to move the furniture or how to move it or where to move it, when it has not brains or nerves, we do not know. Since there must be heredity, variation and survival to get evolution started, will the professor kindly advise us which end gets the heredity and which end survived ? Since each end is the other end of the other end, how are we to get variation started! Since the ones that live now are presumed to be divisions of the first one and stubbornly refuse to evolve, it is difficult to see how any variation could help them.

Why should a creature that can multiply by division and add to its numbers by subtraction, adopt a sex complication that would double the hazard, slow up the process, start a fight among rivals and cumber the settlement with more or less helpless infancy?

Would sex help sexless creatures to resist calamity?

Suppose, just to be generous, we donate sex to evolution, (I do not know any other way it could get it) so that it can get heredity, variation and plenty of fights started.

Now why should a creature that can lay from a hundred to ten million eggs that will hatch themselves, forsake that prolific, care-free method and lay only a few eggs that must be kept warm?

After laying eggs for a hundred million years or so, why should any creature junk the equipment and install the more troublesome system of birth?

Why should creatures that could produce young that could take care of themselves, add to their troubles and help their foes by producing young that needed to be hovered, guarded, and fed?

Perhaps some clever theorist can juggle words and make you believe that the more helpless the young creatures are and the fewer they are, the more there will be of them.

Why should creatures that are equally at home in the water or on land, able to get food or seek safety in either place, limit themselves to the land? Is there any such creature now that could utterly forsake the water and flourish?

Why should creatures having cold blood, requiring comparatively little food, suffering no harm when they freeze solid, adopt hot blood, so they suffer from cold and need more food"?
 

Why should any creature work an injury to itself, if evolution is supervising the job?

There is only one answer to these questions. The Personal Creator who maintains a balance of life on earth, hangs handicaps on those creatures, that because of superior equipment in other ways, might banish other life.

I do not know what God's plan for the creatures was before "all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth"; (Gen. 6 :12) (See Is. 11:7.) I only remind you that life as it is. has a distribution of advantage, handicap, and hazard utterly foreign to any blind haphazard drift of evolution.

It must be apparent to all, that to prolong the period of helpless infancy is to multiply the hazard of death before maturity. If evolution has done that, it has made lies out of its own laws. They have tried to escape this by presuming that a prolonged helplessness in infancy insures a longer mature life, but this is not true. The 17 year "locust" has 17 years' infancy and a few days of adult life. The turtle, goose, and many other creatures arc helpless for only a brief period, yet they live to great age.

There is also a handicap in being "educated" past the place where you can believe God and see simple facts.

If an evoluter could visit Mars and find the order of life exactly opposite, so that life seemed to flow from the complex to the simple, he would come back and say, "They have evolution up there also."