The claim mentioned science, not evolution. I don't have any old science books laying around, but I do have a something written in 1971 by the Watchtower. It doesn't exist online as far as I can tell, so I will reproduce it in part here.
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
They say it is a woman’s right to change her mind, but we say it is the scientist that makes the most use of this feminine privilege. Is it not true that the theories of scientists change like women’s fashions? that what is in high esteem today may be derided in contempt tomorrow? that it is seldom safe to be dogmatic on any of the changing theories of scientists?
Why, look how they have changed their minds on this matter of evolution. They used to vow that life started spontaneously in some mud puddle millions of years ago, but now science textbooks admit that this is not so, that no one knows how life started.
These scientists used to teach that environment caused changes in animals, which changes were passed on to offspring, which developed them further, till after thousands of years completely different animals evolved. But you know that is not true. You know Chinese women used to bind their feet, but it did not cause their babies to be born with deformed feet. Some tribes stretch their lips or bind their heads into queer shapes, but their babies do not inherit these deformed lips or heads. You can lie on the beach for years and become heavily sun-tanned, but your offspring will not be born sun-tanned. Now even the scientists realize such changes acquired in later life because of environment are not passed on to offspring. So the evolutionists have discarded this theory they once fanatically swore by.
Then came Charles Darwin, who said small variations occurred in the forms of animals, and that through natural selection and survival of the fittest the good variations were preserved and over the centuries accumulated till new families were formed. But today the up-to-date evolutionists indulgently smile at Darwin as a well-meaning chap, but do not take him seriously. As one of them said: “Darwin has been shorn of his theory as completely as Samson was shorn of his locks.”
And who was the modern Delilah that clipped Darwin’s hair? One he considered his supporter, geology. Geology is the study of the earth’s rocks and layers, and in these layers are found fossil forms of life that existed in the dim past. The evolutionist would have us believe that in this fossil record of the rocks we can see the story of life slowly evolving from small beginnings up to man. But honest investigation does not show us any fossils that connect two different animal families. Rather, it shows new families appearing suddenly, and that once in existence they did not change greatly. Geology testified against Darwin’s theory.
Moreover, geology dealt another devastating blow to evolution. First appearance of fossils is in earth layers evolutionists say are 500 million years old. But these first fossils are of life in such advanced forms that the evolutionists say life must have been in existence for 1000 million years before, because it would take evolution that long to get little one-celled animals evolved up to these advanced forms that are found in the first fossils. What does this mean? Why, it means that though they say life has been in existence for 1500 million years, they have fossil record of life back only 500 million years, and that therefore they have no record at all of the first 1000 million years of evolution! Two-thirds of the fossil record they need is a blank! May we suggest that the scientists not fret themselves too much looking for the missing link? What they need to find is the missing chain!
Shift To Sudden Changes
At any rate, after geology so riddled the idea of slow evolving of life to bridge family after family, after it showed that the various families of life appeared suddenly and remained constant, the evolutionists changed their minds again, buried Darwin’s theory with mourning, and revised their teachings once more. As evidence of this revision, Doctor Clark, a Smithsonian Institution biologist and evolutionist, said no links connected major groups of animals, that the gaps were natural and not due to a deficiency in the fossil record, and he further said: “So far as concerns the major groups of animals the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.”
Doctor Clark’s confession is confirmed by a French scientist, an evolutionist, who wrote in his book Human Destiny: “Each group, order, or family seems to be born suddenly and we hardly ever find the forms which connect a new group with an ancient one.” He goes on to admit that reptiles appear suddenly, that they cannot be linked with any earthly ancestors, and makes the same admission about mammals. About birds he says they have “all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation”. Now, why should he call the “characteristics of absolute creation” “unsatisfactory”? Because to the evolution-religion creation is heresy!
Nevertheless, scientists have been forced to face the fact that new families appeared suddenly, with all the unsatisfactory characteristics of creation. So what do they do? Acknowledge creation? They would never dream of doing that! So they trot out a new theory that will let them face the fact of families appearing suddenly, without having to face creation. They now preach mutations. A mutation is a sudden change between parent and offspring, such as happens in the case of freaks.
Would it not be possible for a flood of mutations to quickly form a new family? Evolutionists would like to show this, but mutations are very rare in nature. However, scientists have learned that by subjecting the parents to atomic radiation they can cause a heavy run of mutations. So they have taken animals that reproduce quickly, subjected them to radiation, and thus noted changes that would ordinarily have taken many thousands of generations to get. They did this with a little fruit fly, and followed it through enough generations to turn an ape into a man, according to their theory. What, then, was the amazing change effected in the little fruit fly? Did it turn into a bumble bee? or a June bug? No; it was still the same little fruit fly they started with, still undergoing mutations that changed its eyes from red to white, and back again, that changed its wings from long to short, and back again.
And here is an odd thing. If mutations cause evolution, and if evolution made a man of us from nothing, why are the scientists so afraid of mutations? They are, for that is why they dread the aftereffects of atomic bombing. The radiation from such explosions causes mutations, and Life magazine recently reported scientists as saying: “The mutations among the Japanese exposed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki may plague the human race for thousands of years.” The fact is, small mutations weaken the species, big mutations produce freaks that soon die or cannot reproduce. Instead of evolving life upward to higher forms, mutations are harmful. Life magazine recently said: “Five years of tests have shown that radiation produces no abnormalities that do not occasionally show up in nature. No useful mutations have appeared, and none is anticipated.”
Well, there are the hard, cheerless facts facing the evolutionists who had hoped their failing theory could gain salvation by mutations. They grabbed at mutations as the straw to keep afloat their sinking theory, but that straw has become about as useful to them as a millstone around the neck of a drowning man, and once again the evolutionists are thrown face to face with creation. From the fog of wishful thinking the firm fact emerges that they do not have a shred of scientific evidence on which to base their fantastic, unscientific, senseless, silly theory of evolution!
