"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

Puddle To Paradise

"The Pilgrim's Progress of Modernism"

Selecteded from B. H. Shadduck, Ph.D.


Many excuse me on the grounds of ignorance.

If you will read with this impression, you will think for yourself instead of nursing theories left on your doorstep while you were overawed with scholarship.

No doctrine worth while is beyond the reach of the world's burden bearers--the common people. Only error needs to hide in a fog of words. My effort will be to translate the hocus-pocus of evolution into simple words, believing that the contradictions of this "science," if held up to the light, will not make much of a bluff.

In speaking of the Bible, I mean the Holy Scriptures accepted by Christ and the Apostolic Church.

If these pages are read by any POLITE person who has been unfortunate in the choice of ancestors, I regret that I must discuss the family's unhappy past. I would do anything to help you forget it.

I use the words "evoluter" and "evolution-ism" because they fit the mail and the propaganda of the man who musses up his own ancestry with beasts that crawl and bark and gibber and then, to avoid shame, slanders the parentage of everyone else.


Evolution means survival by claw and fang and ambush and treachery. They have fixed up another goody-goody kind for the Sunday School. If they believe the brute kind was good TO GET US HERE, LET THEM PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH! EVOLUTION HAS NOT ONE LAW FOR FOUR LEGS AND ANOTHER FOR TWO.

 The evoluter asks us to keep "hands off" his religion, while he destroys ours. Under the mask of "science," he vilifies our origin and mocks our faith in a miracle working God at the taxpayers' expense. He is willing to wink at some sort of hope-so heaven if we accept his frog-pond Eden.

If some wish to apologize for the Bible and adjust their faith to this loose-leaf creed, we do not want our children adjusted at our expense.

They are passing around a little phrase that is reckoned a withering retort. "I would as soon be made of an ape as a ball of mud." I sometimes wonder if they expect God himself to know what they mean if they don't know themselves. If they mean that God took the lime, carbon, water, etc., in an ape and made a man as a mill makes near silk of sawlogs, that is not evolution. It does not remotely approximate evolution. Evolution means that man was BORN of an ape and that there was no appreciable difference between the highest ape and the lowest man. They tell us that we yet retain some "hold-over" from every crawling worm or reptile our ancestors have ever been. All right, let's go. 


Right now, I ought to have feathers on my arms.

Pin feathers, anyhow.

As a boy, I longed for wings—soaring wings, flapping wings, bat-like wings, any kind of wings that would afford deliverance from plodding journeys.

According to the constitution and by-laws of evolution, I ought to have wings.

Do I talk like a fool?

No. I talk like a man who really thinks evolution will work right here and now—if there is one such.

One of the suppositions that go with the theory of evolution is that there was a time when the reptiles could not get where they were going, fast enough. (I have been in that fix myself.) Now another supposition is that when eyes were needed, "eyes came out to meet the need" and when ears were needed, they came out to hear. The reptiles needed wings; they needed them then and there, but when you want evolution to do anything, you must place your order a million years ahead. Evolution can't be hurried because that would be a miracle too miraculous. It seems that evolution looked the field over and selected a pair of reptiles with a long scale or hair or flap of skin on their legs and mated them up. (!) From the progeny, it chose a pair a wee bit more-so and let them "survive." Always selecting with wings in mind, its "survivors" became pretty birds and because it helped them survive, they layed speckled eggs.

If the Bible contained such folly, how evoluters would mock!

The snakes that could not get feathers started did not die; they ate birds. Evolution often feeds its "survivors" to those that have been THEORETICALLY survived. I have been survived a great many times in the same way, because I did not have wings.

You don't understand how a reptile could grow feathers?

It isn't supposed to be understood. It has been spread out over such vast periods of time and the mystery has been so thinned out with gradual changes that it is supposed to soak through the cracks of your mind without being understood.

And yet, a feather is such a delicate, complicated, wonderful structure that one wonders how a feather machine could make itself, set itself up in the right place and push feathers out in exactly the right way. You see, if it got them wrong end to or wrong side out or didn't lap them just right, they would be only trouble makers. You wonder just what a feather was ten years before it was a feather.

I don't know; ask the professor.

What I want to know is, what we have to do to get wings? Probably every normal minded barefooted boy since Cain and Abel has hurt his feet with stones and briers, has wanted wings. Man has from the first been devising ways to get somewhere without walking. He has longed for wings, so much that wings are in his poetry and associated with his heaven. Along with the want-to, there has been dire need. Millions have lost their lives in times of danger, for want of wings. Surely we have met all the conditions. An eminent authority (McCook) says a "17 year locust" (Cicada) grow wings from "buds" in 15 minutes. How do we proceed to get "buds"?

Evolute is an imaginary verb in the past tense. The farther back in the past you assume its magic, the more the mystery fades and the more "scientific" it becomes. Imagine a professor saying to his class, "This frog is beginning to get ready to develop wings," or "This toad has started to commence to develop a marsupial pouch," or "I see in this turtle a drift that indicates turtles will some day nurse their young.''

Some theories must not be pushed too far.

And yet, evolution is a very convincing theory if you wish to believe it and need it as a poultice for sin. Jesus said false prophets would arise with an amazing show of seeming proof. (Matt. 24:24). Did he mean evoluters? Well, it is certain he did not mean people who believe the Bible TOO MUCH. His warning ought to make his people cautious. There is always a contradiction in false doctrine.

Section 3 - THE TALE OF A PAIL

My neighbor tells a pig story in four chapters.

(1) He bought a half starved runt of a pig.
(2) He fed it a bucket of slop and it squealed for more.
(3) He fed it a second bucket of slop and it asked for more.
(4) He put the pig in the bucket and the bucket was not nearly full.

I can believe either end of the story by itself.

My neighbor seems to believe all of it because when he tells one part he isn't thinking of the other parts.

It is easy to give mental assent to conflicting ideas, if you keep them so far apart that they do not bump each other. All I ask of students of evolution is to bring its contrary theories into focus at the same time.

There are some sincere souls who think they believe in the Bible and evolution and the more they believe in one, the less they believe in the other. Others think they have effected a working compromise, but the compromise is usually all on one side. I want no harmony that will back the Bible in on a switch to let the circus train go by. I want to bring on a head end collision—in your minds at least. I am not unmindful of those students who would like to believe the Bible, but have had evolution-ism dinned into them till their minds follow the beaten path. If such students will try to undo the dinning long enough to consider all that is missing, misapplied or contradictory in the testimony, I have no fears for the Bible. If you have reached the place where you look for contradictions in the Bible and connected truth in evolution, isn't it time to reverse the process in the interest of fair play?


It is obvious that the only possible evidence of what happened when man appeared on earth must be circumstantial—unless the only eye witness is permitted to testify. If what purports to be God's testimony is received, it is against evolution.

I am well aware that many attempts have been made to turn this testimony into "allegory" and make it fit evolution, but allegory must not be made to mean exactly the opposite of what it says. Here is a summary of the testimony and the "allegory."  


God formed man of the dust.

God breathed into his nostrils and he became a living soul. This was to fulfill the plan to make man in God's image. In the catalog of animals, there was not one fit to be his mate. Adam was put into deep sleep and a mate made from a rib. They were warned not to do a certain thing. A reinterpreter appeared and persuaded Eve that God did not mean exactly what he said and promised an evolution to something better.

Man fell and the curses followed.


God made man by proxy; an ape mammy furnished the "dust."

He took a breath for himself when he was born, like other apes.

He was not made in God's image; just started to evolve in that direction.

His mate was another ape product; the ape acting for God, of course.

Man fell slowly, painfully UP.

The other details are "folk lore."

Why this labored effort?

Evidently to thin out the miracle of creation so that anti-miracle "Christians" with weak stomachs can take a little broth. To borrow a phrase from electricians, unbelievers want their miracles "stepped down" to a very low voltage. When you begin making allegories out of miracles, there is no logical stopping place till you make an allegory of God. If we knew the details of Adam's physical makeup before the fall and knew that he had neighbors made on much the same physical pattern, was there anyone to forbid God making him just that way as a special creative act?

Let us illustrate with another miracle. Exodus 4 records the story of a stick that God turned into a snake. Can you say with a certainty on which you would risk your soul, "God couldn't do it; if it was like a snake, it was born of a snake that evolved from a fish"?

Is the New Testament allegory also? Matt. 3:9 says, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." If God did just that thing, they might resemble men without having any evolutionary connection with man or monkey. If creation is impossible in Genesis, it is impossible in Matthew.

Surely there cannot be any possible evidence that a God who did make a serpent from a stick and could make a man from a stone, could not have made his image man immediately and like anything else he pleased.

Evolution-ism, when you simmer it down, puts ape limitations on man and human limitations on God. They assume that we are only a pint of brains ahead of an ape, and as for God—he must have been limited to what man's brain approves.

Some will concede that God could do it, but they shrink from overworking him. Some will say, "Must we believe the improbable?" 

Is creation improbable?

If it is, evolution is impossible. How else could there be the first life for evolution to start with"?

To say that it started itself, is disastrous, for there would be no one to stop it, if there was no one to start it. It is just as necessary to the theory of evolution to stop the process that would produce the first life as to start it. If it could start one place at one time, it could start in many places, many times. If you leave the gate open like that, 30 minutes of time and a ten-acre swamp would generate enough "ancestors" to give each form of life a little forefather of its own.

Is that clear?

It is vital to the theory of one ancestor for all, to presume a some-how-or-other starter to start one little lone progenitor, and have another presumption to stop the starter before it starts two. Otherwise there might be a different origin for each kind of creature, and that would be CREATION thinned out by a process. That would permit each kind to be brought forth "after their kind." This could not explain the creation of Adam, but it would ruin the theory of evolution utterly.

Section 5 - DONATIONS

No man has ever been able to string together the guesses of evolutionism and make a theory, without donating the string. It requires mental contributions to fill up the gaps. When the first life appeared, it could have nothing by inheritance. It was an ORPHAN before it happened. It was blind, deaf, brainless and invisible; if it had any internal "laws" or instinct, you must donate them. You must donate the presumption that some presiding substitute-for-a-miracle, gave it a chemical laboratory, factories and machines to transmit to others, to make feathers, hair, wool, bone, fins, fiddles and all the balance of equipment known to life. Everything that has ever come out of life must have been in it then or has been donated since. You must donate chance to get such freaks as the fish that carries a light on the end of a pole. You must donate luck to prevent some one from evolving a destroyer that would put an end to all the others. Suppose some insect that works havoc now, had grown as large as an elephant?

The controversy really hangs on the question, Could God make man just as the Book says he did? If you say, "No," it shows what this 'ism leads to. If you say "Yes, but I don't think he did," it is then a matter of theory and theory is not science.


For every theory of evolution, there is a theory of creation, just as reasonable, which would nullify it. I suggest a few, but remember they are only theories. I have no wish to inflict another supplement to the Bible, on a world already cursed with man-made revelation. Faith is only a plaything if it cannot outlast a California redwood, but must be rebuilt for every crop of toadstools.

(1) Many able expositors believe the second verse of the Bible describes the wreck of a world formerly inhabited. Continents may have blown up and gone down, leaving the sky black with smoke and gas. If this be true, ancient fossils have no value as evidence.

(2) There may have been man-like animals before Adam and during his life. Some creature called "nachash" in the Hebrew, "was more subtle than any beast of the field." It seems not to have surprised Eve that he could talk and claim to know as much about religion as God did. He convinced her that his plans were evolutionary and would evolve her to a "higher" state. If you think of him as a serpent, remember, the serpent shape was later.

(3) Genesis 6 records the story of cross breeding that corrupted the race. "The Nephilim were in the earth in those days and also after that ..."  There are three interpretations of this obscure passage, none of them wholly convincing, but it is clear that there was a mix-up that greatly displeased God. After the flood there was another appearance of Nephilim, recorded in Num. 13 :33.  If they ever find a skull of the Nephilim, how they will cavort.

(4) God remade the nachash, introduced thorns and thistles, marked Cain, reduced the age of man twice, gave beast heart and habits to Nebuchadnezzar, prepared a fish for Jonah, and there is nothing in the Bible to say he may not have made many other changes in animals and men. Since man has worshipped beasts, sinned with beasts and thought like beasts, there may have been a "mark of the beast" long before the one spoken of in Revelation. Certainly we are not now as God made man.

(5) There is much that we do not know about prenatal markings called "birth marks." We do not know how much the mind may affect the body or what changes sin may have worked in past centuries.

(6) The Bible teaches that God has, at times, accommodated those who "did not like to retain God in their KNOWLEDGE." (Rom. 1:23, 28) The man who prefers brute ancestry ought to be humored enough to let Him believe he has. I do not say that 2 Thes. 2 :11 refers to such men, but I will say it cannot refer to eager believers in the words of him who said, "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me. God may have had arrogant scholarship in mind when he made all creatures.

(7) According to the showing of evolutionists, there are more forms "degenerate" among visible creatures, than there are forms maintaining their place. Then why not presume that bones that indicate half-way stages (if any do) are from degenerate creatures that have gone back rather than forward? This would fit the teachings of the Book.

Not only can we nullify evolutionary theories with other theories, but their theories nullify themselves.


Someone has thought up a slogan, "Facts are Final," and the children of the "mud puppy" (or whatever it was) wonder why the children of the rib-woman do not surrender. The pity is that the student mistakes theories for facts. There are only three general facts, all of which, if not overworked or padded, are in accord with the Bible. Here they are:

(a) Certain forms of life are similar to other forms.

(b) Certain forms appeared before other forms.

(c) Certain forms are not just what they were long ago.
We need not discuss these facts except as we discuss the theories of how they came to be facts. I expect to show that evolutionary theories cannot explain the facts because its theories are contradictory.

TOC  Part 2