Dr. George W. Field, an expert authority, says the oysters of Europe are unisexual, but in America, they are double-sexed. How could one be derived from the other? Even the oyster is too much for the evolutionist. The same argument applies to a great multitude of species, that have little or no powers of locomotion. If all plants and animals originated from one germ in one place, how can plants, indigenous to a single continent, or hemisphere, be accounted for? Why, for example, was there no maize, or Indian corn, in the old world? Or tomatoes, potatoes, or any other plants indigenous to America? If these once existed in the old world, as they must have done, according to the theory, why were they found in America alone? Here we quote from Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest authorities the world ever knew: “I will, therefore, consider the transmutation theory of species as a _scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency.” (Italics ours and yours)._ 13. GOD NOT ABSENT NOR INACTIVE The theory that God is absent or inactive is as untenable and God-dishonoring as the discarded theory of atheism itself. Evolution, as held by many, harmonizes with and supports the false and impossible assumption that God created one, or at most, a few germs, from which all animal species including man, and plants developed, by “natural law.” This theory seems plausible to those who do not examine it too closely. It does not deny the existence of God, and concedes he may have created one or more germs, but delegated the development of an orderly world to “natural law.” Thus his activities are no longer needed. Perhaps they entertain the thought that God must grow weary under the active and sleepless control of the universe, if not of the world alone. They lose sight of the fact that a God of infinite mind and power can not be wearied by any possible complications, or any required amount of energy. Rather, the exercise of unlimited energy is a source of pleasure and happiness. May we not learn this from the boundless extent of the universe? Creation is not a task, but a great satisfaction. If God finds so much happiness in creating a boundless universe, would he renounce the pleasure of the active care and control of 3,000,000 species? The hypothesis that God delegates to “law” the evolution of the universe, the world, and all species, is untenable, because no law, human or divine, can enforce itself. Law has no power. It is not a being, a creature, a living thing. It is absolutely helpless. It can not be God’s agent to carry out his will. Why the need of it? Why should not God use his power direct to do his will? What gain in creating and employing an agent? Which would be easier, to execute his own will, or delegate it to a law?