"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
 John 3:19


 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
1 John 4:1



Selected from Shadduck

There is testimony in dust. (Mark 6:11).

In the charnel heaps of the past, God has written for the present.

"History repeats itself." Its tragic scenes must be reenacted because man has not learned WHY. It would be a wise nation indeed, that was fully warned by the wreckage of others.

Men who reject those parts of the Bible that proclaim the doomsdays of an offended God, have yet to explain the same kind of record, written larger in the tumbled walls of a thousand buried cities. If the Bible does not fit your notion of God, where was your God when great nations collapsed?

Where was the modernist’s God when, on proud Babylon’s palace wall, a ghostly hand wrote for an insulting king and his flunkies, the doom of a kingdom? If you doubt the reality of that hand, the ruins spell out the same message.

Nineteen hundred years ago the hated Nazarene wrote la the Jerusalem dust a writing soon shuffled out by the feel of the heedless throng. Perhaps it was the same decree that was written in the dust with falling lean when He gave the city over to its fate. Perhaps He wrote in the dust what was, In a few years, written large enough for the world to read by the Roman legions.

When He went the way to Calvary, he turned once, long enough to pronounce the doom of a nation. Silent before the high priest, (Matt. 26:63) silent before Herod (Luke 23:9), silent before Pilate (Matt. 21:12, 14). Jesus—the sport of the rabble—turned all blood-wet and uttered words that later found echo in the rhythm of marching armies. If there are some who doubt the Bible record, nineteen centuries have not effaced the conditions He foretold.

In this book I would not mock at scholarship. We know too little.

We are dreadfully informed in ways that cannot save us and woefully ignorant of danger. There never was a time when the world had so many encyclopedias in book covers and under hats, yet with all our doctors (D.D. L.L.D., Ph.D.) the world is alarmingly sick. Our schools would dwarf the ancient temple; so would our prisons. We are so bulging with information that it is now possible for one man above the clouds, to destroy a city in 30 minutes.

Jerusalem was headquarters for knowing ones who were blind on the God side (Luke 19: 42, 44). Deny the words of Jesus, but you cannot deny the fulfillment. Sometimes the buzzards are tutors, and the word has not yet graduated from the school of ruins.

Am I pessimistic?

Not unless my mind is wandering.

I know that men have prepared many resignations for Jehovah and have thrust oft repealed farewells upon Him, but I have the comforting conviction that He his not gone anywhere. The God who put a Paradise at both ends of the Bible will make good every prophecy that lies between.


(Authorities differ in spelling by-by; we use the shorter form.)

By B. K Shadduck Ph.D.


Let the witty colored man explain it,

"Alibi is when the lawyer prove you is where you ain’t so the jury specify you ain’t where you is when you was. After the co’t house adjourn, the lawyer man say. ‘Client. you is cleared; you is scientifically not guilty. but promise me you is more cautious enough in the future’."

This is the picture in miniature of man’s age-long eagerness to accept any two-faced theory that winks one way at sin and another way at reform.

I have known a man to strut his pedigree and expect the homage of common people as a tribute properly due to one having his proud family name. I have known the same man to excuse his sins and promise himself easy mercy after death, on the plea that God cannot expect chastity from sensual humans so recently descended from the ancestors of apes. The sin-lover finds it very consoling to meditate on how well he is doing considering the fact that his ancestry was 99.9% brute, but you start a fight if you suggest a lowly pedigree when he parades his social prominence.

This brute beginning is very convenient as an alibi for sin and a starting point from which to measure a very flattering progress, but keep it far enough in the past not to monkey-fy our caste. I have seen somewhere the intellectual offering of some theorist that some races evolved from a lower type of animal, or at least more recently. It will help to escape the evidence of human depravity, if they will fix up a sliding scale of remoteness, Some wealthy people who seek a basis for nobility would pay well to be rated among those who began to be cannibals 2,000,000 years before the riff-raff.

You may have observed that a man on trial fur murder, having no other defense, will hire scientists to swear that he was mentally unbalanced and that insanity runs in the family, but do not twit him of it after he is acquitted. For the same reason men with a conviction for sin fend relief in believing the God who stewed His material in a billion years of brutality before He fashioned it into a man, cannot be much displeased when He finds the product soggy with broth. If bestiality runs in the fish-reptile-man family by the will of God, how can such a God suddenly change His mind and expect heaven fruit on a limb fed with monkey sap!

I know, of course, that men seldom give to themselves a reason for their mental attitudes and few evolutionists know why they are so eager to prove their theory, but down in the sub-cellar of man’s moral consciousness there lurks a willingness to discredit anything that discredits him. Here is a sample of such a hankering for monkey kinship that amounts almost to a passion.

On the front page of the Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph dated Sept. 30, 1926, there is a column written by one of our modern oracles who is equipped with such a diversified line of wares that he is a kind of intellectual Sears and Roebuck. He says, "Prof. Heberlein, excavating in Java, has discovered a complete skull of the prehistoric ape-like creature known as the Pithecanthropus Erectus, the ‘missing link’ between apes and man." Let the reader consider well the works "known as." They have a name for it before they find it. After making images and pictures of a theoretical creature and calling it "science," they comb the earth to find a bone that can be guessed into the supposition. Continuing, he says. "It is to be hoped that Professor Heberlein will hurry home with his find. If the evidence that man and the ape had the same great, great grandparents is now beyond dispute, bonfires should be built throughout the civilized world.’’

What is the hurry?

Why the hilarity? What shall we gain? From whence comes this craving to rob the ape of his exclusiveness and break into his pedigree? I think I know.

Do not deceive yourself by supposing that it is the ape’s pedigree that they are so eager to share; it is the ape’s escape from judgment that they covet. It is not so much where man came from as it is where he is going, that disturbs sinners. The front end of the Bible is not so offensive to the "modernist" as the last end. If God did not create man from the dust. He will not raise him from the dust (Dan. 12:21.

Comparatively few men read with comfort of a "White throne" and opening books on the reckoning day of God, and it will comfort many, if the first three chapters of the Book can be so emptied of meaning that the last three will upset with lopsidedness.

This does not apply to all evolutionists. Many have never thought it out, many accept the theory because it is reckoned to be a mark of intellectuality and many students have accepted evolution because it has been dinned into them at taxpayers’ expense and claims "the weight of scholarship." "The weight of scholarship" is always on the side of the ones who hold the scales, and agnostics and atheists are beginning to hold some of the scales.

Certainly I do not mean to say that the avowed purpose of all who deny Bible statements, is to excuse human depravity or assure themselves against a "day of wrath," but I do say that this is the logical outcome of the movement and the results are already on display. If I were a lunatic and could have five minutes of sanity, it would take only four to reason it out that to discredit the Bible, must loosen the moral restraints of the nation. Thinking people will not long be satisfied with a doubtful Bible nor with a half-breed religion that is a cross between a happen-so menagerie and a hope-so heaven. If man is better now than Adam, it needs no bloody cross to restore him to a God-likeness from which he never fell. If man fell UP and is yet falling UP, there is nothing for God to do but keep out of the way, and that is exactly what ultra "modernists" want him to do.

If this statement seems too strong, I offer a sample of such conceit I have on my table as I write, a paper called American Farming, dated February, 1926. and claiming a circulation of 700,000. Among the advertisements, I notice pictures of 19 pistols and 2 stills, also an offer to free "liberal" literature and some other literature that is "Daringly Different." On page 26, there is a signed article by a pastor at Cowden, Ill. I do not give his name; he may have a family. I quote just two sentences. "Some folks are standing today where God was a century ago wondering why He is not with them. He has moved on, expecting us to follow." There is a note of self-abasement in this, for he concedes the point that as late as February, 1926. God was somewhere in front.


Here is evidence that 100% "modernists" are consistent enough to deny the Garden of God at both ends of the Bible. This picture of Darwin appeared in a periodical that calls itself The Christian Century (I do not know what God calls it). The publication refused to advertise the JockoHomo series of books. but it did advertise this avowedly anti-Christian book. You will note that the advertisement says of "Darwin" by Gamaliel Bradford. "HE MADE HELL A LAUGHING STOCK AND HEAVEN A DREAM." More than this, "The life story of a gentle, tolerant and lovable man who overturned the world of though, shifted the whole structure of science and upheaved the very foundations of religion and morality."

Is that what evolution did?

Yes. It does all that for people who accept it and follow it to a logical conclusion, but why The Christian Century advertises that fact and calls itself "Christian" though it refuses to advertise books that defend the Bible, is beyond my comprehension, unless it is to fulfill the words of Jesus, "Many shall come in my name."

If Mr. Darwin’s theories could be demonstrated as fact and we could be sure that God could not or did not create one man and one woman, then it were better for humanity never to find it out. If we could know that life passed through trillions of loathsome bodies to came to us and if our brute ancestors buried side by side would make a field of bones reaching to the moon and the miseries they suffered would overwhelm the most literal hell, what good could come of teaching it to little children? If it were true and some man discovered our shame that God had kept covered for 6,000 years, he would be justified in saying. "I thought I bore the image of God, marred with sin, but I am nothing but the warmed over leavings of a billion generations of slimy crawling, creeping, climbing beasts, and if God will keep it from my children, I will."

Yet these ape-kin zealots will "compass land and sea" to convince the youth of the world that the apes are several hundred million years nearer to man in the matter of creation than is God. They say with a fine show of heroism that would almost convince one that they believe it, that science will be strangled if they are not permitted to teach little children that they are the spawn of reptiles much refined by many hatchings. They quote Jesus as though they were in league with Him. "The truth shall make you free." Free from what? Will this theory of evolution free the sinner from his sins? One is left to wonder how much greater the great saints and statesmen and reformers would have been if they could have been free from the notion of God-kinship. How much greater would the old prophets have been if they could have known about their "gill-slits?"


Liberty is a word to conjure by. It is the rallying cry of heroes and demagogues. From truant school boy to anarchist, evil as well as good, clamor for freedom. Used as a battle cry against man’s real foes, it may move all heaven to "amens," but as a declaration of independence from Divine restraint and warning, it amounts to nothing more than the bombast of a slave.


Evolutionists plead for liberty to think.

Who has ever tried to cramp their thinking?

So far as I know, all the members of the Eden caste agree that if anyone wishes to put reptiles In his pedigree, he ought to be humored here or hereafter.

If I have ever denied their right to animal kinship, I apologize.

When I published "Puddle to Paradise." I asked the artist to make a composite picture of the ancestors they claim, and my information is that they do not like it. They argue for a frog-pond origin but resent any acceptance of the theory as applying to them.

Is freedom to be only for evolutionists? Will they accord us liberty to believe that we track back to God without going through a reptile wallow? Is there a greater crime against liberty than to compel Bible-believing parents to send their children to school and pay taxes to have their faith destroyed? Why are they not content to choose their own limb in the monkey tree and let us roost on another bush? Because evolution would crawl into its hole and die if it were generally accepted that ONLY its devotees are the upper end of a fish-reptile-marsupial-whatnot succession. They are happy in the contemplation of a kinship of belly-crawlers, only if they can daub us with the same smear.

I hope never to say as mean things about them as they have said about their ancestors.


If liberty will die and science be strangled unless little children are taught that their pedigree came over from mudpuppy to an opossum-like animal in a bug-eating lizard (or some other combination), why not tell the whole brutal truth? Why keep the abysmal horrors of the theory hidden until the pupil has lost the direction of God? If present conditions on earth are the result of evolution instead of the corruption described in Genesis 6:12. then here is an unveiled lesson for beginners.


The blood it has shed would make a river brimming the gorge of Niagara.

If every life it has taken could have a grain of sand dropped on the earth as a tombstone sent from the stars, we should be buried under a desert of sand 100 miles deep.

If every pain and pang it has caused could be wept over, it would take the hurricanes of the ages for sobs and drain the oceans for tears.

In describing the early home, H. C. Wells (evolutionist) says the children knocked the old mean in the head when they were old enough.

And why not?

Isn’t that exactly how undiluted evolution would behave?

Arthur Brisbane says. "Less than 50,000 years ago all human beings were cannibals except the lowest, most miserable specimens, too dull to kill anybody." Then we must have descended from the dull ones. Well, if we are to have evolution taught, let us have the whole brutal truth.

The logically alert evolutionists have found no place in the system for a compassionate God and many of them find no need for any kind of God if they can only have an amoeba to start with. The Humane Society would jail any man who entertained himself with the cruelties of evolution.

If God has been pleased with the way the world has been going, the devil might just as well resign. So far was Jesus from blaming either God or evolution for world conditions, that he called the evil one "the prince of this world," even as Paul called him, "the god of this world."

Evolution is presented to beginners as though it were some benevolent kind of process; as though an oyster is millions of years better off than an amoeba and a rabbit is much happier than a toad. They do not stress the point that a louse has an easier life than an elephant and that a stinging fly has the advantage of a horse. It seems to be the policy of teachers to omit the odious details until the pupils are inoculated. There are some who credit the sorry mess to God and think they pay Him a compliment.

While the captains of this drive are willing to weaken the authority of the Bible, most of them are willing to crossbreed evolution with any kind of religion and raise ethical maxims to save civilization. When "flaming youth" is loosed from the restraint of a wholesome fear of God, he is not likely to bow his head to a halter of ideals. Ideals are not in great demand. You can go where young men congregate and sell a basket of bull pups before you can give away one high ideal. Keen minded youth will not be slow to discover that evolution was never based upon morals, but worked best when its favorites obeyed the driving impulses of the flesh.

When youth loses faith in the religion of the fathers. what is there to hold them to the moral standards of the fathers?

If evolution worked because lives as numberless as star dust were sacrificed, and the winners were the ones that were brutishly alert, on what ground may an evolutionist rebuke brute standards in man?

Theistic evolution is an expression that, in its working clothes, means a divinely supervised breeding of reptiles and their ancestors and progeny, to arrive at man. Great evolutionists smile at the conceit but do not resent any faith in any God, if He will keep up. They are really generous to any church that is a camp-following church and will tag along in the wake of whatever passes for science. They even find the Bible convenient for mottoes and sentiments and enough moral doctrines to flavor and filter evolutionism so that its brute struggle will not remind people of a cat fight. Really, "modernism" has no quarrel with any church that will croon lullabies to a sin-loving world instead of warning men "to flee from the wrath to come."