by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 296

Most of our readers are reasonably familiar with the theory of Evolution – its errors and vagaries; but we are hopeful that a review of some writings on it – along with some of our own additions – may prove interesting and helpful.

Evolution claims to do with the origin of man; and it is freely admitted that the questions of, Whence came I, and whither do I go, have absorbed the attention of the best minds among the human race since any records have been kept. And yet this subject, complex as it may seem, is relatively simple when its weakness is properly ex­posed. There are a number of different schools of thought on this subject – each one trying to bridge the gap of error which the others expose; but none of them have suc­ceeded, because it is impossible properly to substantiate error.

We start with the overall picture which almost all of them accept; namely, that the first life on this earth appeared in the water of this hemisphere, originating in the Pristine Mud, and gradually evolving into the fish, then the mammals, then the reptile that lives partly in the water and out of the water; then strictly land-ani­mals – and finally man. This all sounds very good on paper until the microscope of truth is directed upon it.

Those who claim that man originated 2,000,000, or even 10,000 years ago, fail to take into consideration certain indisputable facts. One of the strongest of these is history itself. It is well established among scholars that the first date in history on which scholars can agree is 536 BC – the year Cyrus the Great sent the Jews back to Jerusalem after their seventy years of Babylonian captivity. We do not mean to in­fer here that nothing happened before that date – we know plenty of things did happen ­but the pundits cannot agree on the dates on which they happened – not prior to 536 BC. Now, doesn’t it seem odd that some reliable records would have been kept prior to 536 if man has been on this earth for such a long time? And this does not mean that the intel­ligence was lacking back there to do it. Our readers are familiar with the life of Moses; and intellectuals agree that his was one of the finest minds ever to appear among fallen men.

Euclid is admittedly the most prominent mathematician of antiquity, best known for his treatise on geometry – a man of whom we hear very little today. However, there is a city on Lake Erie in Ohio named Euclid for him. His birthplace is not even known, although he lived about 300 BC Next to the Bible, his work is the most translated, pub­lished and studied, of all the books produced by the western world. There are other outstanding Greek and Roman philosophers who are much quoted yet today; yet none of them give us any reliable record prior to 536 BC We are told “knowledge shall increase” (Dan. 12:4), but it is self-evident that intelligence hasn’t increased. As we consider the great minds of the past, all the “intelligence” of our day wouldn’t accomplish much without the accumulated wisdom of the ancients. But with the records of these men’s accomplishments, the accumulated knowledge of the past has enabled them to make consid­erable progress. But no king has ever attained the wisdom of Solomon, much less “evo­luted” – that is, surpassed his wisdom. “With all thy getting, get understanding.” (Prov. 4:7)

It is also well established that the smallest of human brains contains about 68 cubic inches; whereas, the best of the simian apes contains only about 34 cubic inches. Quite a difference! It is little wonder they have never found the “missing link.”

It is in order to insert here that David’s fight with the Philistine giant Goliath properly types the conflict that took place after 1874 AD At that time most of Chris­tendom was permeated with the idea that Evolution was the thing – just as they also then believed that eternal torment was the wages of sin. Thus, Brother Russell had as big a fight over Evolution as he did over eternal torment; but he shattered the belief so com­pletely that hardly any well educated people now believe the error. In fact, we have heard over the radio some months ago that a prominent university was conducting a spec­ial course in its curriculum against Evolution.

We might instance another personal experience: We were reasonably well acquainted with an eye specialist; and one day in his office he remarked – without any prodding from us – that the white of the eye does not ordinarily have any blood in it; but, if you should secure some sort of sore in the eye, a tiny blood vessel would creep out from the rim to treat the sore, dissolve it – then disappear. And he made the remark to us that no one could convince him that was merely a matter of chance: there had to be some intelligence back of it.

One publication that is favorable to the Evolution theory makes the statement: “Science cannot comment on the soul.” Of course, a true evolutionist does not believe the Bible, so he receives little or no help there; but the word ‘soul’ occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is well defined by the various lexicographers. And it pre­sents little difficulty to understand it once the truth about it is accepted. We have a tract on What is The Soul, which analyzes the subject quite thoroughly; and any of our readers are welcome to a free copy if they request it.

This same commentator makes this statement: “Modern man is so far removed from nature that if he were plunged back into the Paleolithic conditions he would quickly perish. On the other hand, Paleolithic men would not survive long in modern civilized conditions either.” And further: “Also man is the only species in the animal kingdom that will perform wholesale massacres of its own members; animals are protected from do­ing this by innate behavioral control of aggression. Then the excuse is offered, “Perhaps it is because man is a recent species, lately descended from austra-lopithecines who owed their survival in aggressive behavior in bands, with all that that implies in the way of mob psychology.” When we consider the peace and quiet that prevailed in the Garden of Eden until sin entered, it is just impossible to fit this thing together with any sem­blance of logic or intelligence. “The man and his wife were naked, and they were not ashamed.” (Gen. 2:25) But after they were beguiled into sin, “The Lord God called unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, be­cause I was naked; and I hid myself.” Adam showed much more intelligence about right and wrong, obedience and disobedience, than many people do today.

As stated above, man is the only animal that resorts to wholesale massacre of his own kind. Yet we are told that we have evolved from the lower animals; and, now that we have evolved, we are worse than they are. St. Paul properly describes this in his letter to Timothy: “Avoid profane and vain babblings, and the oppositions of science falsely so called.” (1 Tim. 6:20)

Another cult (not naming themselves Evolutionists, but actually teaching the same thing) produces the brilliant conclusion that God is not really a person, just an energy, and that all of us have evolved from that energy. It takes quite a fluid imagination to reach such a conclusion; and it brings the words of David vividly to mind: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God... there is none that doeth good.” (Psa. 14:1)


Following are some excerpts from Parousia Vol. 6, with some comments of our own: “‘In a beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ we are to remember that this beginning relates not to the universe, but merely to our planet. Then it was that ‘the morning stars sang together’ and all the angelic sons of God ‘shouted for joy’ – when the Lord laid the foundations of the earth and ‘made the cloud the garment hereof and thick darkness its swaddling band.’ (Job 38:4-11)”

The King James version of Gen. 1:2 reads that “the earth was without form and void.” This is self-evidently a very loose statement, because a piece of mud in the hand has some form to it; and, if there was any matter at all in the earth’s constitution at that time, it must necessarily have had some form. The correct translation says, “The earth was empty and waste.” There was no living organism on it at that time.

And there was reason for this: From geological deduction we conclude that “in a ­beginning” the earth was simply molten rock, white with heat – which would drive off everything that could be moved at all, leaving simply the bare rock. In Northern Canada this rock (now cool) appears on the surface (known to miners as the outcropping). There is no earth or vegetation on it.

Inasmuch as the sun was not visible until the fourth day of the creative week (Gen. 1:14-19), it follows that the first three creative days were not 24-hour days, ruled by the sun such as we have with us; but they must have been periods of time. And during those days huge trees and other things developed, which is certainly contrary to anything we know now about 24-hour days. A gigantic tree cannot be produced in one 24-hour day. Nor need we argue that anything is possible with God. We believe that is true; but His possibilities lie only within the scope of his own laws as we observe them today. We are told it is impossible for God to lie, the reason being that this is contrary to His own established law of truth.

Therefore, we conclude that those creative days were periods of time; and we find substantiation for this in the Bible. It tells us of the day of temptation in the wil­derness – forty years (Psa. 95:8-10; Heb. 3:9,17), sometimes called a day or “time.” Also, Peter’s statement “that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” (2 Pet. 3:8) Also, Psa. 90:4: “A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” Certainly those creative days could not have been of 24-hours duration; but it would seem a logical conclusion that all of them were of the same length of time, regardless of their duration, being of one creative week.

Here is what Prof. Dana has to say about it: “In calculations of elapsed time from the thickness of formations there is always great uncertainty, arising from the depen­dence of this thickness on a progressing subsistence (irregular sinking of the land). In estimates made from alluvial deposits (soil deposited from water), when the data are based on the thickness of the accumulations in a given number of years – say the last 2,000 years – this source of doubt affects the whole calculation from its foundation and renders it almost, if not, quite worthless. When the estimate is based on the amount of detritus (fine scouring) discharged by a stream it is of more value; but even here there is a source of great doubt.”

Thus, it is unfortunate that at the beginning of this millennium (1874) some of the brightest minds have rejected the thought of an intelligent Creator to the recognition of a blind force operating under a law of evolution and survival of the fittest. That theory had not only found acceptance generally in the highest institutions of learning, but it was gradually being incorporated into the text books of our grammar schools.

We now quote from Parousia Vol. Two, first published in 1889: “It is not many years since the skeleton of a man was found in a former bed of the Mississippi river, and some geologists began to calculate how many thousands of years might be indicated by the many feet of silt, slime, etc., covering the skeleton, and fancied they had a very valuable sample of pre-historic man. But finding later, several feet below the skeleton, parts of a flat boat, such as was in use on the Mississippi less than fifty years ago, it com­pletely upset the calculations, and relieved mankind of another proof that the world is hundreds of thousands of years older than the Bible teaches.” (page 35, par. 1)

Those of our readers who can recall the year 1925 will remember the famous trial at Dayton, Tenn., where the teacher was teaching this evolution theory to his pupils; and it aroused the animosity of many of the Dayton citizens. Eventually, they brought teach­er Scopes to trial, with the idea of discharging him from his position. He engaged Clarence Darrow, the renowned Chicago criminal lawyer for his defense, while the opposition brought William Jennings Bryan on their side. At the turn of the century evolutionism was being badly battered by the truth that was hurled against it; and it is probable that Mr. Bryan read enough of that at that time to give him enough truth to win the Day­ton battle, although many publications at that time severely ridiculed him for his stand on the subject.

However, here is what one prominent publication has to say about it: “Highly pub­licized trial of a Dayton, Tenn., high school teacher, John T. Scopes, charged with vio­lating state law by teaching the theory of evolution: In March 1925 the Tennessee leg­islature had declared unlawful the teaching of any doctrine denying the divine creation of man as taught by the Bible. World attention focused on the trial proceedings, which promised confrontation between fundamentalist literal belief and liberal interpretation of the Scriptures. William Jennings Bryan led for the prosecution, and Clarence Darrow (a famous Chicago criminal lawyer—JJH) for the defense... The judge ruled out any test of the law’s constitutionality or argument on the validity of Darwin’s theory, limiting the trial to the single question of whether John T. Scopes had taught evolution, which he admittedly had. He was convicted and fined $100. On appeal, the State Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1925 law, but acquitted Scopes on the technicality that he had been fined excessively. The law was repealed in 1967.”

One of the clever remarks made by William Jennings Bryan at this trial was when Clarence Darrow handed him a rock and asked Bryan to tell him the age of it. Said Bryan, “I am not interested in the age of rocks; I am only interested in the Rock of Ages.”


The average person considers a mule a cross between a donkey and a horse, which is true; but the definition is not comprehensive enough. A mule is any animal that can­not reproduce itself. And this rule is so rigid in nature that animals will not gener­ally cross their line, but they occasionally do so under the pressure of man. Thus, a dove and a pigeon – looking almost like twins – will mate under pressure, and produce an offspring; but that offspring cannot reproduce itself. This offers the evolution­ists more of a problem than they have been able to solve.


Mendel was a monk who did considerable research into this matter of evolution; he did not believe it. Thus, he eventually discovered that the reproduction of animals al­ways followed a well-defined pattern. For instance, if he mated a white rabbit with a black rabbit, the offspring would invariably be 25% black and 25% white, with the remain­der being mottled. He demonstrated this so many times that those who became familiar with it could not do otherwise than believe it. Also, some sixty years or more back some breeders of chickens decided to cross different varieties, with the idea of obtain­ing the best in each strain. But what happened? Instead of the best in each, they produced the worst in each, making the experiment a complete failure. Horsemen have dis­covered the same thing with valuable horses; so they now content themselves with improv­ing the strain they have – without any crossing. All of this is bold and transparent dis­putation of evolution.


Many theories have been advanced on this subject, evolution being involved in some of them. However, we incline to the explanation of Prof. Vale, which we shall offer briefly as follows: First of all, we would say that things unrevealed belong to God, and we do well to wait for the “due time” of His revelation. However, by way of research man has found there are various strata or layers composing the earth’s structure. Nor is this altogether theory. If we go to the north rim of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado ­where it is a mile deep – there the various strata are so plainly visible that they al­most look as though they had been put there by the artist’s brush. They not only are varied in thickness, but each has a different color.

Scientists agree that these strata were at one time moist and soft – when the earth was a molten mass of white heat. This great heat drove anything movable away from the earth; but as the earth began to cool these various rings were precipitated producing what we see in the Grand Canyon. That the earth is still far from cool on the inside is shown by the geysers in Yellowstone Park, which erupt regularly with very warm water. This is also corroborated by the gold mines of South Africa, some of which are down about two miles; and the temperature is so warm there it is very difficult to recover the gold.

It is well to insert here that gold is about the heaviest material we know, being nineteen times heavier than water. Thus, being the heaviest, it logically follows it would be the first to be precipitated back to earth. That accounts for gold being so difficult to find, costly to recover, giving it the name of the precious metal. It is generally taught that it is indestructible, which is basically true; but this does not mean that it is always in the form in which we see it. Gold will melt at 2,000° Fahren­heit; and, if it is heated enough, it will dissolve into a gaseous form. Thus, the earth’s gold mines are deepest in the earth – sometimes visible on the surface, and sometimes not. In fact, the gold discovered at Sutter’s mill in California in 1848 was largely on the surface, and is known as placer mining. That found in the quartz stringers goes deeply into the earth, must be blasted loose by highly scientific methods – very expensive to recover; and most of it is thus located.

It is surmised that there were seven rings about the earth – and this is confirmed by the formations in the Grand Canyon. The last of these is believed to have been most­ly water; that it broke at the North and South Poles first, then rushed toward earth’s center, causing the great Flood of Gen. 7. There is some substantiation for this, be­cause in recent years men have found animals in the frozen north with undigested grass in their stomachs, clearly proving that a great change violently and suddenly took place.

It also changed our climate in a marked manner. Quite a few of the antediluvians then lived for more than nine hundred years. But, so far as we know, no one born after the Great Flood ever lived half that long. And there seems to be good cause for this: Before the Flood there had been no rain upon the earth (“There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” – Gen. 2:6), which means there was no fermentation in the earth before the flood. Thus, the atmosphere was probably about 80% oxygen and 20% nitrogen, which would he conducive to long life. Now the situation is just reversed: Presently, the air is about 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen; and water cov­ers about 80% of the earth’s surface.

Geologists claim that the surface gold found in California in 1848 is simply the wash-off, the small residue that was absorbed by the glaciers, then deposited in Califor­nia when the ice melted. So far as we know, there are no gold mines at all at the equa­tor, but the real deposits are to be found nearer the North and South Poles. The Hollin­ger Mine at Timmins, Ont. (not too far from the Arctic Circle) was at one time the largest gold mine in the world; and those in far South Africa are also unusually large and prof­itable to mine.

Now follows a comment of Prof. G. F. Wright, Oberlin College, Ohio, regarding this matter: “Prof. Wright firmly believes that, at the remote time that North America was covered with ice, Siberia was also covered with ice. And the water and the ice were practically phases of the Biblical flood... All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, Noah only and those with him in the ark remained alive. After 40 days and forty nights of continuous rain – the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days (Gen. 7:17-24).”

Knowing the end from the beginning, Jehovah so times the introduction of man upon the earth that the last of the rings came down in a deluge just at the proper time – in 1656 years after creation – to destroy the corrupted race in Noah’s day, and thus introduce the pres­ent dispensation (“this present evil world” – Gal. 1:4). The removal of the watery en­circlement of the earth not only gave changing seasons of summer and winter, and opened the way for violent storms, earthquakes, etc., but it also made possible the rainbow, which was first seen after the flood, because previously the sun could not penetrate the watery canopy so as to give the rainbow effect. (Gen. 9:12-17) And that bow was set in the sky as a solemn assurance that “all flesh be not cut off any more by the waters of a flood.” (Gen. 9:11) And so it has been since the great Flood, there has been no flood since to “cut off” all flesh.

However, those living at that time did not believe what God had told them, so they attempted to build the Tower of Babel (gateway to God, or Heaven). “So the Lord said, let us go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Gen. 11:7) This had the effect of dividing the people into tribes or groups, and eventually into nations as we see them now. But, whereas the Lord wished to scat­ter them then, He is now doing just the reverse: “My determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation... for all the earth (society as presently organized) shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.” (Zeph. 3:8) And after that, the kingdom – “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” “I will turn to the people a pure language (a language they can all understand – not cor­rupted with the traditions and foolish imaginations of evolutionists and other errorists – some of which we have mentioned aforegoing), that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.” (Zeph. 3:9)


It is our understanding that each of the “days” of the creative week was 7,000 years long, the first two of which (14,000 years.) were devoted to the ordering of the earth in preparation for animal life. The next two days (another 14,000 years) were de­voted to bringing forth vegetation and the lowest forms of life – shell-fish, etc. – in the water. The next two epoch days (14,000 years) brought forth living creatures that move in the sea and on the land. It was during the sixth of these 7,000-year days that the reptiles appeared – those animals that lived partly in the water and partly on the land. And at the extreme end of the sixth day “God said, let us make man in our image.” (Gen. 1:26)

And man in God’s “image” in his physical organism is so vastly superior to the highest member of the brute creation as proves him to be an animal standing immeasur­ably above all of earth’s other animals, which is a pure disproof of evolution. His up­right position – not walking on his hind legs – with all its implications, physical, men­tal, moral and religious, and its guarding him from degradation in these four respects, is one of his marked physical differences from the brute creation. It is well stated that man has four characteristics, or appetites – the alimentiveness (the desire for food and drink); the procreative (the affinity for the opposite sex); the acquisitive (the desire to get and to hold – house to house, field to field); and the spiritual (the desire to worship a higher being). All of the lower animals have the first two of these appetites, some have the third, but none of them have the fourth. And this fourth is so deeply imbedded in our blood that the worst of the heathen – even savages – all have it. If we go to darkest Africa, we find those limited intellects worshipping some­thing that they believe is higher than they are, and which they hold in reverential awe.

A well-made man surpasses in symmetry and beauty the form of any of the brute cre­ation – his expressive eye, his winsome smile, his charming voice and his intellectual and religious countenance. We once knew a man who had done some prospecting in the Rocky Mountains of the United States. Inasmuch as a good portion of rock is exposed in those mountains, this man would occasionally just sit on a board and slide down the moun­tain for a hundred or two hundred feet. One day he did this, but at the bottom he slid right into a sort of room enclosed on three sides by an unscalable wall, with a door in the middle of the front wall. But, when he looked around there was a mountain lion very near him, bristling his back hairs and swishing his tail in an angry manner. Of course, the man was quite unnerved; he was defenseless against this brute, and unable to get away from him. So he said he just began to curse the lion very loudly – at which time the lion pricked up his ears, looked timidly at the man, then turned and went out the door. Apparently he had never heard a human voice before, and it completely befuddled him.

Thus, there is nothing in the brute creation that bears reasonable comparison with man. The human skin in complexion, delicacy, softness and informativeness is far above that of any of the brutes. His five senses stand out perceptibly, although dogs and other animals may have a keener sense of smell because of their need for it, whereas, man does not need it. Above all external members, man’s hand is the finest tool that has ever been seen. It can wrap itself around any object. Just contrast this with the fin of the fish, the wing of a bird, the hoof of the horse, cow or sheep, the pedal of the elephant, the paw of the lion, tiger, dog or cat and the combination of the foot-hand of the simian groups, and the difference reaches to high heaven in favor of man’s hand.

Even apart from Adam being in God’s image and likeness, his body stands out as al­most infinitely superior to that of any member of the brute creation. Well could David exclaim: “I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are thy works.” (Psa. 139:14)

Surely man’s body, apart from his intellectual, moral and religious endowments, in contrast with the bodies of earth’s lower creatures, is a strong disproof of evolution, a strong proof of his being a special creation, and a wonderful credit to his Creator’s wisdom, power, justice and love.

Another telling argument against evolution is the assertion of Acts: “God hath made of one blood all nations of men.” And this is borne out by the results we see. It matters not what races intermingle, their children are able to reproduce themselves. A white man and a Chinese; a Chinese and a Negro; an Indian and an Eskimo – all come within the scope of Gen. 1:24,25: “And God said, Let the beast of the earth bring forth after his kind.” In certain places the races have interbred, without any of them pro­ducing a sterile offspring – a statement which cannot be truthfully said about any of the lower animals. This certainly proves the unity of the human race and disproves evo­lution. Some philologists claim that all languages are derived from one basic language – proven by the similarity of their chief roots, words, and grammatical constructions.

This has reduced our languages to five linguistic groups, and these five in turn may be reduced to one original language. Inasmuch as there are thousands of different animals, it would mean thousands of different languages if the human family had origi­nated as did the brute creation.

Part Two of this treatise on Evolution will be concluded in a future paper. We trust what we have given will be a help and blessing to all God’s people who read it.

“Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, not such as turn aside to lies. Many, 0 Lord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.” (Psa. 40:4,5)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



Dear Sirs:

Would you please send me information in your teachings, beliefs, and organizational beginnings? Also, would you please send me a list of your publications if such is available? Thank you for your kind cooperation. Yours truly ------- (NEW  YORK)


Dear Mr. Hoefle:

I appreciate the literature that you have sent me thus far. I am in the process of reading and examining it now.

I am in this letter giving some of the information that you requested about myself. I am connected with the Baptist denomination (Independent Baptist – not Southern Bap­tist). I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I have studied the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and to a lesser degree the teachings of the LHMM. I have some of the publications of the Dawn Bible Students

I am interested in obtaining information for my studies from the different Bible Students groups. I know, as you have stated in your first letter, that you disagree with the LHMM and the Jehovah’s Witnesses on some points – and that most of your papers deal with the errors of these two groups. I would like to examine this area of informa­tion in more detail.

I trust that this answers your question about my religious affiliations.

Sincerely yours, ------- (VIRGINIA)


Dear Friends:

As head of the Reference Department in a large theological seminary library, I re­ceive many questions and inquiries which can often only be answered from information obtained from pamphlet–type material. Since we attempt to keep our information file as complete as possible in all areas, we are interested in having a complete file an all religious bodies in the United States, as well as bodies outside the United States where possible. We are thus interested in obtaining any materials you may have avail­able which would be of benefit in such a file. If you could send us any free materials you have available, as well as order lists of materials we could purchase, we would be most appreciative.

If possible, we would also appreciate being placed on any mailing list to receive further materials which may be available.

Your assistance is most appreciated. Very Sincerely, ------- Assistant Librarian (TEXAS)


Dear Sir:

I would appreciate it if you would send me some information about the teachings, practices, and history of your Association, and also if you would advise me as to how I may receive your Newsletter.

Thank you very much. Sincerely ------- (MASSACHUSETTS)


Dear Brother Hoefle:

Thank you for the good reading. The last few are just like Brother Russell used to write. I came into the Truth in 1913, and was a close friend of Sister ------- and her family from then on. Now they are gone – and I am real well and going.

It seems like everything that happens is fulfilling the Bible. Yes, great things are happening. It is a blessing to understand them. Thank you, Lord!

May God bless you! Hold to the Truth, as we out here need it. I am sorry there are so many groups, and against each other. Sad to me!

Christian love ------- (CALIFORNIA)

P.S. Enclosed is a small donation to help.