A new kind of dogmatism is sweeping the scientific world. No longer do leading evolutionists speak of evolution as "theory." Today, many assert it to be FACT. Long bitter antagonists of "dogmatism" in religion, evolutionists have gradually become the proprietors of a new, and very dogmatic, religion of their own. It's the religion of NO GOD — the FAITH in evolution! Read the shocking claims of one of the most august assemblies of evolutionists in history — and then see how the fascinating truth about CARNIVOROUS PLANTS traps evolutionists!
One of the most momentous events in evolutionary science occurred in 1959. Attending a series of lectures on the campus of the University of Chicago were such respected leaders of evolutionary thought as Julian Huxley, Axelrod, Bates, Darwin (grandson of Charles Darwin), Dobzhansky, Emiliani, E. B. Ford, Gaffron, Leakey, Olson, Rensch, Shapley, Simpson, Tinbergen, Waddington, Wright — and a host of others. From the scientific pulpit in Mandel Hall issued forth some of the most astounding assertions of this scientific age. A new kind of dogmatism seemed to prevail.
No longer did these giants of the evolutionary world speak of theories, postulates, or hypotheses — now they dogmatically asserted evolution to be FACT! With stentorian thunder, the sweeping pronouncements found their way into science writers headlines, into textbooks, and into the thousands of classrooms represented by the huge assembly of eager teachers of science. The interest In the meetings was intense. Masses of teachers came to each discussion — remained until the final words were spoken. And no wonder! Here, at last, or so it seemed, was absolute, final PROOF for the eager teachers. Here, at last, was ammunition for their classes to silence the last dissenting voice against "spontaneous generation" or "natural selection." No longer would teachers be subjected to nettlesome questions from "Creationists" in their class rooms — for now the united voices of the world's most famous and renowned teachers of evolution had handed down the final decree. Evolution, they said, was a fact. In an opening address, Julian Huxley picked up and read from the Preamble: "Biologists one hundred years after Darwin take the FACT of evolution for granted, as a necessary basis for interpreting the phenomena of life."
No Longer Theory?
After reading the questions to be discussed by the panel, Julian Huxley officially began the panel discussion period. He said, "The evolution of life is no longer a theory; it is a FACT and the BASIS FOR ALL OUR THINKING" (Evolution After Darwin, Volume III, Panel Discussion of the Evolution of Life, pages 107, 111). The succeeding hours and hours of discussions were liberally sprinkled with equally dogmatic assertions about the proofs of evolution. And what an IMPACT such language had on the academic world! Thousands of teachers returned to their classrooms across the nation, newly armed with fresh dogma; fresh doctrine for their students. Evolution was true. There was no use arguing further. Anyone who belabored the issue at this point would be scathingly indicted as a "religious nut" or a completely uninformed, uneducated "nincompoop" who wasn't willing to accept the pronouncements of the greatest minds in the world. So they informed their students. But what if YOU were one such student? The teacher dogmatically asserts you EVOLVED. All life, he says, came from NONlife. All living creatures gradually, over millions and billions of years, CHANGED from one kind to another. Amoebas became living, highly complex animals. Fish became reptiles. Reptiles became birds. Amphibians became ungainly land animals. Land animals became men.
Any Specific Proof?
But, being an inquisitive student, you want some PROOF. You want to look into any specific PART of evolution, and be able to see a clear-cut — concise — DOGMATIC example of evolution IN ACTION. A professor quoted Huxley, following the panel discussions:. "I think that [the intense interest displayed by teachers] was extremely important. The first thing the celebration did, I am sure, was to convince a large number of people that there was NO POINT IN ARGUING ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. "It simply IS NOT JUST A THEORY any longer; it is a fact, like the fact that the earth goes around the sun and that the planets do all sorts of things... "The other point I think was brought home to the people who attended the panels was that you can no longer talk about creation. "Animals, plants, and human beings EVOLVED; they were not created in the Biblical sense" (Evolution after Darwin, Sol Tax Editor, Volume III, "All Things Considered" Panel, pages 264, 265).
But You Are Skeptical!
But, like most people, you've probably had at least SOME religious training. You have always "just thought" that there is perhaps, some sort of a "god" up there. You have no really CLEAR idea of what KIND of god — or whether HE CREATED — but you have had a fair share of religion taught to you. Being broadminded — you want to INVESTIGATE. You don't expect to give up traditions, past ideas, and notions of your own without at least SOME sort of proof. After all — where would the world be if everyone just SWALLOWED something because a so-called "authority" SAID so? So you go to your college library. Pick any library. Pick the one in the University of Chicago — from which the astounding pronouncements of evolutionary dogma issued forth. Take a look at the book called, The Carnivorous Plants by Francis Ernest Lloyd — since it was claimed that PLANTS evolved. This particular book is a classic in its field. No OTHER WORK is comparable on the subject with the possible exception of Darwin's work. In this book on one of the practical, tangible aspects of "evolution" you expect to find PROOF. You eagerly expect to find POSITIVE statements. FACTS! So turn to page 7. Here you see the phrase, "evolution of the carnivorous plants." Ah! Now you can settle back and see, with an open mind, the real PROOFS of evolution at last. In this particular study — that of only ONE group of the MYRIADS of life forms all around you you're comfortably assured you will see PROOFS for the absolute conviction with which your professor speaks. PROOFS to substantiate the snickers and sidelong glances of other students who regard you as slightly eccentric or archaic. You begin reading. "About the origin and evolution of the carnivorous plants, however much these questions may intrigue the mind, LITTLE CAN BE SAID, nor have I attempted to discuss them...." But — WHAAAAAAT? Wait a minute, here! What is this author saying? Did he really MEAN he would not even discuss this VERY important point in the evolutionary scheme of things? You continue. "The fact that they have originated at TWO OR MORE distinct points in the phylogenetic tree is of major importance. "How the highly specialized organs of capture could have evolved seems to DEFY our present knowledge." The author then lists several huge problems which he admits are impossible to resolve. Then follow these words: "Since we CANNOT ANSWER these questions, IT IS PERHAPS AS WELL TO SAY. NO MORE" (The Carnivorous Plants, Francis Ernest Lloyd, pages 7, 8). But WHAT IS THIS? When you actually investigate, for yourself, specific aspects of the evolutionary story, you find NO DOGMATISM. Instead, you find an impossible array of DOUBT. Of CONFUSION. Of MAYBE'S, perhaps's, possibly's, could-have-been's, and we-may-safely-assume's. Frantically, you investigate DOZENS OF OTHER volumes. But the SAME THING happens. In every single instance, you see HUGE DOUBTS. MISSING evidence. MISSING intermediate species. MISSING proof. MISSING fossils.
Is YOUR Mind open?
Can you imagine the screams of indignation should evolutionists read these headlines? "Theologians one hundred years after Darwin take the FACT of CREATION FOR GRANTED, as a necessary basis for interpreting the phenomena of life." Or, "The Creation of Life is no longer a theory, it is a FACT and the BASIS for all our thinking!" Can you imagine the scoffs, snorts, and sneers of scorn at any such "return to medieval DOGMATISM?" Scientists would RIDICULE the use of such language. They would demand PROOF of such assertions! But is YOUR mind open? Do you honestly believe that evolutionists have been entirely OBJECTIVE in their approach? Do you believe they have STUDIED THE BIBLE, investigating all its claims, and studied geology, biology and all related fields from the point of view of creation — and then felt they had to DISCARD such an explanation? If so — you are hopelessly misinformed. Dozens and scores are the frank admissions of evolutionists that they automatically REJECTED creation as an answer. Sometimes, they even give the reasons WHY. For example, in his book entitled, End, and Mean" pages 312, 315, 316, Aldous Huxley admitted, "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently ASSUMED that it had none... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is... concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality BECAUSE IT INTERFERED WITH OUR SEXUAL FREEDOM; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. "The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever." (Emphasis ours throughout.) Huxley objected to professing "Christians" who seemed to have no difficulty in "justifying" imperialism, war, the use of torture — and ecclesiastical tyrannies — but who still insisted on certain personal "morality." While one may sympathize with his natural dilemma as a result of such contradictory philosophies — and readily understand why it appeared to Huxley these men MUST be wrong, it is equally clear that TWO ERRORS do not produce TRUTH. What an amazing corroboration of the blazing indictment of scripture given in Romans 1:28; "And even as they DID NOT LIKE to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a REPROBATE mind...." Then follows a scathing account of all the forms of libertine promiscuity admittedly DESIRED by so many today!
Gaping Holes in Theory
Evolutionists KNOW their theories are shot through with BROAD GAPS. They KNOW there are mammoth PUZZLES, giant QUESTIONS, huge PROBLEMS, unanswerable DIFFICULTIES in their theory. Still, they cling tenaciously to a belief, a dogmatic assertion, an article of FAITH. Why? Because blind chance won't RULE them. Empty space — "natural selection" and "spontaneous generation" will not thunder from heaven any MORAL and SPIRITUAL LAWS! Human nature resents God (Rom. 8:7). It does not want to be GOVERNED by the Creator God — does not want any restrictions placed on it. It's about time you began to come to grips with the real issues — and quit hiding behind what you may "suppose" to be "proofs." It could mean your life! So now — once again — let's notice what happens when we look SPECIFICALLY into evolutionary doctrine. What about the origin and "evolution," of carnivorous plants? WHY must evolutionists REFUSE to discuss them? Why must they BRUSH ASIDE this peculiar group of living things? WHY do they feel it well to SAY NO MORE? Let's let the specialists themselves answer! Let's see the breathtaking story of some more of the handiwork of God — let's see FACTS about the creation around you — and ask evolutionists to explain it all. But first, listen to this admission about the imagination-defying IMPROBABILITY of any evolutionary beginnings having occurred! "The odds against the right combination of circumstances occurring to evolve intelligent life on earth were about 400 thousand trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion to 1," said a Nobel prize-winning scientist, Sir John C. Eccles. Then he said, "the appearance of man is highly improbable, and one can hardly imagine it happening TWICE in the universe." If the "odds" against evolution are so infinitely enormous so as to require brain-defying series of naughts to express the improbability of it — even happening ONCE — then what are the "chances" of evolution being true at least twice in the rise of insect-eating plants? Remember the statement you read in the textbook? "The fact that they have originated at TWO OR MORE distinct points in the phylogenetic tree is of major importance... HOW the highly specialized organs of capture could have evolved seems to DEFY our present knowledge." But let's continue in our perusal of facts about insect-eating plants.
There are 450 species of carnivorous plants spread throughout 15 genera and 6 families! And that is, to evolutionists, a SHOCKING fact; all by itself. Why shocking? Simply that botanists are forced to admit these many different plants have many different ways of obtaining their food. Some of these plants have pitfalls. Insects are lured to the brim, fall over the edge, and fall with microscopic splash into a murky, insect-digesting soup below. Others are living flypaper. Insects crawl onto the plant and become stuck in a "gooey" substance, and are later digested. The microscopic Utricularia and related genera are called mousetraps that spring into action when activated by unwary microscopic animals. Perhaps the most well-known, called the "Venus flytrap" is a living, miniature bear trap! Besides having various traps, each has its own unique way of luring the insects close. Some are colored profusely, while others give off a fragrant odor. Each has, strangest of all, perhaps, digestive juices that actually create FOOD for the plant out of the insects. But WHY? How? HOW could plants — which normally always obtain food through their roots — gradually "evolve" into INSECT EATERS? Did slipping insects "GRADUALLY" over BILLIONS of years "cause" these plants to develop a "desire" to feed on insects, which led to a requirement to develop digestive juices, microscopic hairs which trigger the traps, special coloration, and peculiar odor?
One of Evolution's Stickiest Problems
Not only must any botanist embracing evolutionary dogma have an imagination fertile enough to DEFY every natural law with which he works and cling to notions of mindless "leaps" in life — but he must be able, in spite of the incredible odds against evolution having happened ONCE — believe it happened TWICE OR MORE in the case of planttraps. Then, he must account for all the many different KINDS of traps — pitfalls, snares, flypaper, beartraps, mousetraps. He must explain, as we shall see, fantastically INTRICATE devices which spring the traps, plus a whole host of insurmountable other difficulties. A far different approach is found by experts in the various fields of the natural sciences from the more philosophic notions of leading proponents of the theory of evolution. While botanists, ichthyologists and the like may cling to DOGMATISM in their insistence of evolution, their works are nevertheless FILLED with their huge, gnawing DOUBTS about the theory. They say, in effect, "since we CAN'T ANSWER questions about various SPECIFIC 'instances' of evolution — WE SIMPLY PREFER NOT TO DISCUSS THE SUBJECT FURTHER!" They say, in effect, "You, the layman are simply NOT ENTITLED to an opinion, one way or the other — WE will do your thinking for you." One author said, "Since we CANNOT ANSWER these questions it is perhaps as well to SAY NO MORE!" But we of The PLAIN TRUTH staff intend to say MUCH, MUCH more! Let's say MORE, right now, about these marvelous insect-catching plants!
The Sundew and Its Relatives
We have room to discuss only a very few types. There are 90 species of Drosera around the world. The best known is the sundew (Drosera rotundifolia). In each of the species, the leaves are covered with gland-bearing tentacles. These tentacles secrete a sticky substance that makes the species of Drosera the plant flypaper! The tentacles perform a dual role. They secrete the deadly, insect-snaring glue and at the same time bend over the hapless insect victim until he is securely tied down! The sticky glue also serves a DUAL purpose. It snares the insect and supplies digestive juices that turn the insect into plant food. As an insect crawls across the glue laden tentacles — he becomes stuck! The more he struggles, the more entangled he becomes. The secretion begins to increase. The tentacles nearest the point of stimulation begin bending over. Soon other tentacles, on the periphery, also bend over. At times, the whole leaf will curl over. Just how sensitive are the glands on the tentacles of the plant? The sensitivity is phenomenal. Charles Darwin experimented at some length with the common sundew. Here in Darwin's own words is the story of the sundew and its amazing sensitivity: "It is an extraordinary fact that a little bit of soft thread, 1/50 of an inch in length and weighing 1/8197 of a grain, or of a human hair, 8/1000 of an inch in length and weighing only 1/78740 of a grain (.000822 milligramme), or particles of precipitated chalk, after resting for a short time on a gland, should induce some change in its cells, exciting them to transmit a motor impulse throughout the whole length of the pedicel... "The pressure exerted by the particle of hair, weighing only 1/78740 of a grain and supported by a dense fluid, must have been inconceivably slight. We may conjecture that it could hardly have equalled the MILLIONTH OF A GRAIN... it appears to me that HARDLY ANY MORE REMARKABLE FACT than this has been observed in the vegetable kingdom" (Charles Darwin, Insectivorous Plants, pages 26, 32, 33).
Can you imagine it? Here is a bit of ordinary hair .000013 of a grain in weight — pressing on a Drosera hair, causing it to move! Such a particle on the DELICATE human tongue would be far too light to cause any sensation. But that isn't all. Whenever an INEDIBLE particle touches the glands and causes the tentacle to bend over, the leaf soon "realizes" its mistake and reopens. Remember, that plants have NO nervous or muscular tissue. Yet, Darwin later proved that ONE TWENTY-MILLIONTH of a grain of phosphate in aqueous solution caused Drosera to react. There is yet more: "A single touch or even two or three touches does not cause inflection." Darwin admitted: "This must be of some service to the plant; as during STORMY WEATHER, the glands cannot fail to be occasionally touched by the tall blades of grass, or by other plants growing near... on the other hand, extreme sensitiveness to slight pressure is of the HIGHEST SERVICE to the plant. "Nevertheless, the movements of the plant are not perfectly adapted to its environment; for if a bit of dry moss, peat, or other rubbish, is blown on to the disc, as often happens, the tentacles clasp it in a useless manner... "That water should produce NO EFFECT might have been anticipated, as otherwise, the leaves would have been excited into movement by every shower of rain" (Charles Darwin, Insectivorous Plants, pages 35, 77).
Could This Have Evolved?
But how would an evolutionist reason about the chances for the "development" of carnivorous plants — or any plant or animal? Notice what Julian Huxley said about the chances of natural selection — in speaking specifically about the supposed evolution of the horse: "Of course, this could not really happen, but it is a useful way of visualizing the fantastic odds AGAINST getting a number of favorable mutations in one strain through pure chance alone... NO ONE would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet IT HAS HAPPENED. "It has happened, THANKS TO the workings of natural selection and the properties of living substances which make natural selection inevitable" (Evolution In Action, Julian Huxley, pages 41, 42, 43).
Reasoning in a Circle
Can you believe it? Here are men who know that the idea of evolution simply taxes human logic BEYOND its limits. They know that it is simply IMPOSSIBLE even statistically — for all life to have evolved. Evolutionists scorn religion as being "illogical" and "unscientific!" Yet, they admit to the utterly INFINITE IMPROBABILITY of their theories. IN SPITE of all facts to the contrary — IN SPITE of all the DOUBTS, the MAMMOTH problems they must "not discuss" or "lay aside" they still CLING TENACIOUSLY to their theories! Let's face it. Such absolutism — such dogmatism knows no parallel since the days when ecclesiastical authority demanded of a scientist that he SWEAR, UNDER THREAT OF DEATH that the world was, indeed, FLAT! Such FAITH in a theory NOT PROVED would embarrass the comparatively WEAKER "faith" of many a professing Christian! Look further into the impossibilities of evolution to account for the myriad wonders of living things. A current accepted idea is that a genetic pool of mutations is built up over vast periods of time. These slight mutations are held in readiness (as recessives) so that natural selection can come along and select certain characteristics. Or, that slight mutations make a slight — but beneficial — change in an organism immediately. This is what causes evolution from one type of creature to another. Given enough time, anything can evolve — it is said. Taken to its logical conclusion, every characteristic in all forms of life should have GREAT survival value. Otherwise, natural selection wouldn't have selected out THOSE characteristics. But evolution runs into a brick wall here. There are just too many instincts in nature that DON'T HAVE ANY, or in some cases limited, value for survival. The carnivorous habit in the Drosera is just ONE of many such exceptions. We've already read Charles Darwin's admission that the movements of the plant are NOT PERFECTLY ADAPTED to their environment. Why? Because they can be fooled by rubbish and peat moss to bend their tentacles. If natural selection singled out mutations, it would have picked out one for ability to tell edible from non-edible — immediately. But this is only the surface problem.
To Eat or Not to Eat?
Extensive experiments have shown that the Drosera do benefit from being able to eat insects. The fed plants DO forge ahead of the unfed plants. But catching insects is not essential for survival. UNFED plants do live — and thrive fairly well. Lloyd admits: "Such more or less contrary views" — some had even claimed that the carnivorous habit was a DISADVANTAGE, since overfeeding the plant would kill it — "have in the long run been brought to a focus in the idea now generally accepted that carnivory is a very striking and useful adaptation, which, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS OBLIGATORY, can under circumstances better the condition of the plant" (Francis Lloyd, Carnivorous Plants, page 163), But if the role of insectivory is not very crucial in the struggle of existence — WHY did natural selection CHOOSE the genes that supposedly produced this habit? Again, evolution cannot explain it and remains silent.
The Venus Flytrap
One of the most remarkable of the carnivorous plants is the genus Dionaea — commonly called the Venus flytrap. At the end of each leaf is a two-lobed trap ready to imprison an unsuspecting insect. The lobes are poised — waiting for an insect to trip one or more trigger hairs located WITHIN the lobes. If these are tripped, the plant snaps shut — SUDDENLY! Inside, the insect prey is doomed. Botanists have admitted that this plant trap simply couldn't be improved upon. The trap is the acme of perfection! Trapping an insect is one thing. But it's worthless if you can't digest him. The Venus flytrap is up to the task. The trap becomes a stomach. Digestive juices are secreted by the plant. The insect is broken down chemically into nutritional material for the plant. Further, the plant would have to be able to INGEST the nutrients. This it does too. It has been proven that Venus flytraps that have been fed insects thrive better than ones which HAVEN'T had any to eat. The Venus flytrap is selective. If an insect triggers the trap, it will stay closed for days — until the insect is thoroughly digested. If some other, inedible substance should trigger the trap, it will open in a FEW HOURS. Of course, all this array of abilities is WORTHLESS if you can't first LURE the insect to the trap. Here again, the flytrap scores. The inner faces of the lobes have a band of glands that exude a substance that is pure perfume to insects. They come to examine — and ZAP! Suddenly, they find themselves enclosed in a vegetable prison.
How Does It Move?
Scientists have puzzled over the problem of how or what sets off the triggering mechanism. Notice this admission: "How the mere touch of a toothpick or an insect on one of the flytrap's minute trigger hairs can cause so violent a reaction is an OPEN QUESTION. Plants have neither muscles nor nerves. "What then is the source of the mechanical energy? "Plant physiologists, who have PUZZLED OVER THIS PHENOMENA for more than a hundred years, still cannot agree on the answer" ("Plants that Eat Insects," Paul A. Zahl, The National Geographic Magazine, May, 1961). The author continued: "How this tension develops and how the signal is transmitted from the trigger hairs are MOOT QUESTIONS, although a recent study has shown tiny electrical disturbances during the action." The flytrap has no muscles, no nerves, no hinge of any kind. Yet, it can release its trap in less than HALF A SECOND, later it can close tightly against an insect, finally it can reopen! If electricity is involved in the action of the flytrap, then the plant is FAR MORE COMPLEX than has been thought. But just exactly how this causes tensions to be built up and suddenly released by the triggering action of the sensitive hairs is yet unknown. A further problem is, how does the flytrap "know" when to REOPEN?
Did the Flytrap Evolve?
Once again, we ask, could such numerous and complex mechanisms develop piece by piece over vast periods of time — or suddenly mutate into existence by one quick stride? Most botanists such as Lloyd have simply said: "Since we don't know the answer to these problems, it is best to SAY NO MORE"! But that doesn't make the problem go away. If evolution is so logical — the flytrap mechanism should be EASILY explained. Charles Darwin tried to explain it some one hundred years ago. He asked: "Can any light be thrown on the steps by which these remarkable powers [of the Venus flytrap and other carnivorous plants] WERE GRADUALLY ACQUIRED?" (Charles Darwin, Insectivorous Plants, page 361.)
How did he attempt to answer this problem? First, he discussed the marvelous absorption power. He said that other plants absorbed various chemicals in their cells. This he said was the answer! The Venus flytrap had merely "learned" to do it BETTER. But let's stop and analyze that. Is that really an answer? Or isn't it merely pushing the problem back. If the ability to absorb nutrients is found in other plants where did THEY ACQUIRE THAT ABILITY? Nevertheless, Darwin dismissed the problem after one long paragraph. But that was only problem one. Who can explain how the plants acquired the ability to digest insects? How did Darwin answer this one? (Almost nobody else has tried!) Again, he said ALL plants contain an acid; all plants have power to dissolve protein substances. Therefore, the Venus flytrap has merely PERFECTED this ability. But again, we ask — where did the other plants acquire their "limited" ability to do this? Nevertheless, Darwin used this circuitous reasoning in order to avoid the problem. He concluded on this issue by saying: "As it cannot be doubted that this process would be of high service to plants growing in very poor soil, it would tend to be perfected through natural selection... "It ceases, therefore, to be any GREAT MYSTERY how several genera of plants, in no way related together, have independently acquired this same power" (ibid, page 363). But saying it DOESN'T make it so. However, let's go on to problem three.
More Unexplained Problems
Darwin on stage again: "Little light can be thrown on the GRADUAL acquirement of the third remarkable character possessed by the more highly developed genera of the Droseraceae, namely, the POWER OF MOVEMENT when excited" (ibid, page 363). First an admission of ignorance — then comes the same reasoning. Other plants and flowers have the ability for some kind of movement. Therefore, the Venus flytrap movement is just a PERFECTED ONE. Let's stop and think! Is that really the truth? Does it make sense? Darwin admits these are inferences and probabilities. He is simply taking the problem and trying to use it as PROOF! The ability to lure insects, to trap insects, "to digest insects, to absorb the nutrients had to be SUDDENLY created TOGETHER. Otherwise, each of these would be useless. And, surely, no evolutionist could claim all these marvelous mechanisms and abilities suddenly mutated together.
Diving in Deeper
The Venus flytrap isn't as simple to explain as that. Remember, we discussed the possibility of electrical sensations. But here is something even more basic. You can take drops of water — or even a stream of water — and pour it on the Venus flytrap. But it doesn't close! Darwin tried this and found it to be so. He even blew many times through a fine pointed tube with great force. But blow as he would against the triggers — there was no closure. What's the point of this? Obviously, the Venus flytrap was designed so that it WOULDN'T CLOSE during rainstorms and high winds. BOTH of these would be prevalent in the areas in which they grow. The sensitivity of the Venus flytrap is related to a MOMENTARY touch (and this has to be more than once) rather than PROLONGED pressure. What does this prove? It's quite clear that a Master Designer — One who had His ENTIRE CREATION in mind — designed the Venus flytrap. He knew rain, wind would be there. So He engineered the flytrap so it wouldn't respond to such pressure. But what did Darwin claim? "This may be accounted for by SUPPOSING that these plants and their progenitors have grown accustomed to the repeated action of rain and wind, so that no molecular change is thus induced; while they have been rendered more sensitive by means of natural selection to the rarer impact or pressure of solid bodies" (ibid, page 365). That's what the idea is — a supposition! We simply cannot reason about things which man creates in this way. No one could claim that a lot of metal scraps gradually got accustomed to bears walking over them until they "developed" into a beartrap! That kind of reasoning is foolish! and we can plainly see it. Yet, we allow men to hoodwink us by this SAME KIND OF REASONING when it comes to God's Creation. Let's wake up and realize the truth.
Why So Rare?
It has been admitted that of all the carnivorous plants — according to man's way of thinking — the Venus flytrap is the BEST adapted. Yet, it is one of the most limited in its range. Not only that, it is gradually becoming extinct. Darwin again admits: "It is strange fact that Dionaea, which is one of the most beautifully adapted plants in the vegetable kingdom, should apparently be on the high road to extinction" (Charles Darwin, Insectivorous Plants, page 358). Yes, a problem to evolution. But not to the truth of creation. But another problem is that Venus flytraps have THRIVED FOR YEARS without any insect or meat tidbits. "Botanists believe that consumed insects serve carnivorous species... contributing to maximum growth and vigor but NOT NEEDED FOR SUBSISTENCE" (The National Geographic Magazine, "Plants that Eat Insects," Paul A. Zahl, May, 1961). If it wasn't necessary for survival, how did natural selection — why did natural selection — choose these COMPLEX characters to develop? After all, evolutionists tell us: "Animals [and that goes for plants} acquire new characteristics if they provide some IMMEDIATE advantage. They are never acquired merely by accident, to be stored away, as it were, like money in the bank, possibly to serve some useful purpose in the distant future" (The Primates, LIFE NATURE LIBRARY, page 178). The obvious truth, of course, is that the Venus flytrap DID NOT evolve. It was created, complete with all the marvelous mechanisms. A demonstration of the engineering ability of the Creator God — with a dash of His humor!
Carnivorous plants also exist in the submicroscopic world! There are five genera of them. One of these genera, Utricularia, consists of some two hundred sixty-five species — around the world! Francis Lloyd, who did years of research on these free-floating plants, was simply amazed. Here is his startling summary: "They present a COMPLEX AND PUZZLING morphology... "But most to be wondered at are the traps which present an ASTOUNDING DEGREE of mechanical delicacy depending on a fineness of structure scarcely equalled elsewhere in the plant kingdom. "Moreover they occur in an UNEXPECTED VARIETY of form" (Francis Lloyd, Cantivorous Plants, pages 213, 214). You cannot really appreciate the traps of these plants without a microscope. Utricularia vulgaris — the most common
UTRICULARIA SUCKS IN FOOD — Microscopic animal (see red circles) swims near door of a trap — one of many composing each Utricularia. It trips door which opens — animal is sucked in. Later, after digestion of microscopic animal, the trap is reset through a process of pumping out water through membranes of the trap walls. — Gentry — Ambassador College — (See PDF For Pictures)
species — has a trap no larger than a PINHEAD! A microscopic water animal will normally swim around aimlessly. But branched whiskers near the doorway GUIDE the daphnia or other water animals to the trap. When the animal touches the trigger bristles — the animal is VIOLENTLY SUCKED INTO THE TRAP! It only takes about 1/50 of a second for the trap to capture its unsuspecting victim. The trap then becomes a stomach. The animal is digested and utilized as food. But how does it work?
Mystery of the Traps
Actually, the traps work on the "partial vacuum" principle. Along the lower lip of the Utricularia vulgaris are some bristles. These bristles are attached around the trapdoor. They distort the lower edge of the door when touched. SUDDENLY! — a surge of water is sucked into the trap, carrying in the hapless victim in its vortex. But how does this sucking process take place? First, water is pumped OUT of the trap through membranes in the walls. This results in a lowering of the pressure within the trap. The door even has a row of cells that acts like weather-stripping to make the hermetic seal sure. The trap is now set. When a microscopic animal trips the bristles which trigger the door, it is sucked in. A good analogy might be riding in a jet at thousands of feet above sea level. The cabin must be pressurized at atmospheric levels. Outside, the pressure is MUCH LOWER. If a window were to be suddenly broken in that plane, a person next to it could be projected out. The Utricularia trap works on the same principle. Man's bear trap and mousetrap are PITIFULLY primitive in comparison. Lloyd, after finishing his study — was simply fascinated. He frankly stated: "In closing this account one cannot but wonder at the astonishing variety of trap structure. It is not less astonishing that there is NO EVIDENCE that one form of trap is superior to another in action. "The fact of variety is one with the same phenomenon observed when we survey attentively some other unit of structure. "It seems as though nature, or to deify her fruitfulness, Nature, is not nor ever has been content to make some one thing, however satisfactory, and to let it go at that. "She must show that she is not bound to the details of a pattern, that in this case, she can make a WHOLE SHELF FULL of different kinds of traps, as if to PUZZLE you to pick the best" (Francis Lloyd, Carnivorous Plants, page 263).
Who Was the Engineer?
As is obvious to anyone with a really open and thinking mind, all these carnivorous plants are a proof of the existence and DIRECT HAND of God. The intricacy of design; the multiple variety of types; the infinite complexity of working design — defy the MIND of man! He stands aghast at the puzzling array of life. The mastery of engineering involved defies the greatest human invention. A mousetrap may be bigger than the Utricularia; but its primitiveness of design in comparison to the plant trap puts it a FAR SECOND. Yet, the mousetrap was designed by thinking humans. Then, isn't this proof that the INFINITELY more complex plant traps had to be DESIGNED by an infinitely greater mind than that of man? Of course! Can YOU see that this vast creation is proof positive of a Creator God? Can you come to accept that God and see He is the RULER of this universe? The time is short. The evolutionists — and YOU — have only a few short years before all doubt of His existence will forever be banished!