The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 61

March 18, 1884

“‘Evolution’ and Evolution. (Continued.)” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 61, 12, pp. 178, 179.

BY ELD. A. T. JONES

(Continued.)

BUT now as evolution is so “directly antagonistic to the doctrine of creation,” what do those persons who pretend to hold to both evolution and the Bible do with those scriptures which speak of the creation of the world, of man, etc.? Why, that is all set aside as “not historical,” “not historically correct,” Etc. Wm. Hayes Ward, D.D., editor of the Independent, in his issue of Feb. 26, 1880, says: “For reasons which almost, if not quite, compel their ascent, one of which is the general acceptance of the doctrine of evolution, many believe as I do, that the story of the creation and fall of man, told in Genesis, is no more the record of actual occurrences than is the parable of the prodigal son [italics mine]. Dr. Dorner, the greatest among German evangelical theologians, whose name is honored here as in Germany, holds that this story is not to be accepted as history. So hold perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half, of the educated ministers in our leading evangelical denominations. When Dr. Boardman, of Philadelphia, repeated with great applause and then published a year ago his lectures on the Bible cosmogony, taking this view, I do not remember that a single Baptist paper in the North found any fault.... Nevertheless, Paul doubtless believed that the story of the fall was true historically, and used it as an illustration convenient and pertinent for the purpose he had in mind. But it cannot be proved that God might not properly allow Paul to use the illustration, which occurred to him as being to his purpose, even though it were not an actual verity.” But [“be astonished, O ye heavens, at this”!!] “we do know that a commandment given on Sinai assumes as a reason for working six days and resting on the seventh, that God made the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh; but we know that this statement is not historically correct. The world was not made in six days.” ARSH March 18, 1884, page 178.1

Now is it sufficient to say simply that evolution is antagonistic to creationism? Is it not antagonistic to the whole Bible, and even to the Creator himself, when in reply to the words of Jehovah, spoken with a voice that shook the earth, “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth,” the evolutionist boldly asserts, “We know that the world was not made in six days”? It is sufficiently astonishing in itself, to realize that a man could be so boldly irreverent as to thus flatly contradict the living God in the only words ever written by his own hand; but our astonishment is increased when we realize that this same man claims to be Christian, and not only that but is a “Rev.,” a “Doctor of Divinity;” and more, that he is only one of thousands of the same titled gentlemen who hold to the same views. I would willingly stop here with these words so bold that I almost tremble as I copy them; but doubtless it were as well to bring out to a fair view this “scientific” system fully, so that we may know, in a measure, what we shall yet have to meet in our defense of the third angel’s message, and the whole truth of God. ARSH March 18, 1884, page 178.2

Again Dr. Ward says in an editorial: “But we are told that certain statements—for example, as to the origin, the early history and character, and the age of man—are made in the Bible, and that their acceptance as historical facts is binding upon any one who accepts the Christian system taught in the Bible. To this we have replied that if this is true Christianity is already gone, and to the educated mind the Bible is already gone, or very soon must go; because the scientific authorities, the only authorities on which we can depend, are now substantially agreed in holding and teaching certain theories about man’s origin, as well enough established, which are quite inconsistent with the story in Genesis of the creation of man and woman. This we have stated as a fact, and have concluded that the friends of the Christianity which we so heartily believe in and support, must adopt a theory of the Bible which will not put God’s word into direct contradiction with the teachings of our best authorities in science. We have said that we, laymen in science, are compelled to allow the now well-nigh unanimous authority of our best teachers, that man was physically, at least, evolved from irrational animals, and has lived on the earth scores of thousands of years.” [This is from the editorial before quoted, entitled, “Deliver us from our Friends”.] ARSH March 18, 1884, page 178.3

So, then, it appears from all this that the Bible is of no authority at all, but the “scientific authorities are the only authorities on which we can depend;” and to these “authorities,” we all, and the Bible, and even the Lord himself, must bown in unquestioning credence; for, as is said in another lace, “It is so generally taught that it is inevitable that our thinking and scholarly young men will generally accept it on the word of those whose business it is to study the matter.” And by this same token the “inevitable” result is that the word of man supplants the word of God. And right in the face of all this, we are gravely told that “this evolution is held and taught in harmony with Christian faith.” ARSH March 18, 1884, page 178.4

If all this can be held and taught in harmony with Christian faith, I should most intensely like to see that form of doctrine which can not be held and taught in harmony with the Christian faith. And that it is not and cannot be so held and taught, is betrayed by Prof. Francis L. Patten, in an article on this subject originally published in the Interior, and quoted in the “Editorial Notes” of the Independent. He says:— ARSH March 18, 1884, page 178.5

“Neither the preacher who cries ‘infallible Bible’ without showing that it is infallible, nor the priest who cries ‘infallible church’ without giving proof of her claims, will satisfy the man who, with all earnestness in his eye, and all uncertainty in his speech, asks, What must I do to be saved? The church must defend the doctrines she preaches. The pulpit must meet the skeptic with something better than assertion and something more satisfying than earnestness. And if the pulpit has not the time to do this work, and the existing societies have no interest in it or no means of carrying it on, it is not a day too soon for those who know the importance of the controversy to put their heads together to devise a scheme for the preparation of a literature suited to the wants of the doubters of the day.” [Italics mine.] ARSH March 18, 1884, page 178.6

Exactly! the literature of the Bible is not suited to the wants of the scientific doubters of the day, and therefore the evolutionists must devise a scheme to prepare something that will suit them. And what a blessed scheme that will be, of man’s devising, and above all, when he is an evolutionist! It will suit though. And then when the man, not with all “earnestness” in his eye and “uncertainty” in his speech, but with all pride in his eye, and all arrogance in his speech, asks, What must I do to be saved? the answer comes from that splendid scheme, Believe in evolution; Deny the plain statement of positive facts of the Bible; Flatly contradict the words of the Lord, although spoken with his own voice, that shook the earth, and written by his own blazing finger on tables of stone; and instead accept evolution “on the word of those whose business it is to study the matter,” and hold them as “the only authorities on which you can depend,” and thou shalt be saved. yea, evolution and Darwinism shall be the stability of thy times and strength of salvation; and great shall be the peace—of the apes. ARSH March 18, 1884, page 179.1

That will suit them every one and every time. And even if it should not, all that will be necessary is simply to “devise” another “scheme” “suited to the wants of the doubters” of this. ARSH March 18, 1884, page 179.2

But not to treat them cavalierly, we will examine that other form of evolution known as “Theistic Evolution;” that is, a form of evolution which acknowledges God: and inquire where in the theory this acknowledgment comes in, and why. It is plain from all that has gone before that this acknowledgment of God, especially as a creator, does not lie at the beginning; because, as has been often stated, “evolution is opposed to creationism,” is “directly antagonistic” to it. and as evolution is opposed to creation generally, or once for all, so biology, its chiefest handmaid, is opposed to special creations; i.e., of any interference of a creator after the process has started. And in this evolution and biology are both plainly consistent, and reasonably so, too; because it is certainly a reasonable position before quoted from Prof. Huxley, that “if all living beings have been evolved from pre-existing forms of life, it is enough that a single particle of living protoplasm should once have appeared on the globe as the result of no-matter-what agency. In the eyes of a consistent evolutionist any further independent formation of protoplasm would be sheer waste.” ARSH March 18, 1884, page 179.3

And further he says: “If the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter; for by the hypothesis the condition of the globe was at one time such that living matter could not have existed in it.” Now surely it is no more than reasonable and consisten, upon this basis, to suppose that if living matter could arise entirely of its own evolutionary power from not-living matter, and start onward in its progress without a creator, it certainly could keep itself a-going just as easily without him. ARSH March 18, 1884, page 179.4

Then what is it that impels these other gentlemen to the adoption of theistic evolution, i.e., that God has interfered in a certain place? There is just one thing, and that alone, and herein is the pivot upon which turns the whole theistic process; and that one thing is, the immortality of the soul. Believing as these men do, in the immortality of the soul, it is impossible to adopt such an idea, or doctrine, as that immortality should be evolved from materiality, and therefore God must have interfered in the process just at the place where the immortal soul was bestowed upon man. But the moment that view is adopted, there appears the inconsistency also; for theistic evolution, holding, in common with evolution straight, the antagonism to the doctrine of creationism, when it admits the interference of God in behalf of the immortal soul, it therein admits the doctrine of creation; for assuredly the bestowal of immortality upon that which has been evolved from apes and lower forms of animals is nothing short of a creative act, or volition, of God. And the inevitable consequence is, the doctrine is inconsistent with itself. ARSH March 18, 1884, page 179.5

Now for proofs that the soul is the main, if not the only, point of distinction between evolution and evolution. It appears dimly in the above first-quoted statement of Darwinism; thus: “According to him, even mind, heart, conscience, are just as much the product of physical evolution as is the physical structure itself.” And again in the foregoing list of leading evolutionists the qualifying word “physical” is applied thus: “Man’s physical structure they regard as no real exception to the law;” “And where a man believes in evolution it goes without saying that the law holds good as to man’s physical structure;” plainly implying that his mental structure is held as an exception. But Darwin has shown conclusively, not by speculation, but by genuine science, that the difference in the mental power of man and the lower animals consists not in kind but in degree. And surely none of these theistic evolutionists, ultra as he might be, would deny at least some mental structure to the lower animals. Consequently, when they differ form Darwinism, it can only be on that one point of the immortality of the soul. ARSH March 18, 1884, page 179.6

Happily, however, we are not left to this conclusion drawn from qualified statements, necessary though it may be, but we have the unqualified statement itself by one of the highest authorities on evolution. Mr. Sully, before quoted, says: “At first sight it might appear that the doctrine [of evolution] as applied to the subjective world, by removing the broad distinction between the human and the animal mind, would discourage the hope of a future life for man’s soul.” Exactly; and this is consistent with evolution throughout, and consequently when these “orthodox,” “evangelical” gentlemen, holding fast to that intensely “orthodox” and “evangelical” doctrine, the immortality of the soul, adopt evolution, they are compelled to adopt such a form of it as will admit this doctrine, even though it involve them in the glaring inconsistency of antagonizing “creative activity,” yet being obliged to antagonize their antagonism to save their theory. ARSH March 18, 1884, page 179.7

But of what worth is all this “contrivance to save appearances” if the soul be not immortal? It is “nothing worth.” And as the soul is absolutely not immortal but in this, “man hath no pre-eminence above a beast” (Ecclesiastes 3:19), this consideration removes the whole and sole ground of distinction between the two forms of evolution; and then this would-be theistic evolution appears just where consistency and the logic of pure evolution demand that it should appear,—that is, in the bald reality of atheistic evolution,—and brings out the plain truth plainly that there is no such thing as theistic evolution. ARSH March 18, 1884, page 179.8

But when this so-called theistic evolution, resting only upon a fallacy the exposure of which so surely lands it in atheistic evolution, is so wide-spread, so almost all-pervading in the orthodox and evangelical churches, schools, and colleges, are we not brought in another form to the contemplation of the text, “Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth”? Not alone, Shall he find faith in his second coming? But, shall he find faith at all? In studying these evil tendencies of the times, I am persuaded that “when the Son of man cometh,” he will not find faith in his word, he will not find faith in faith in himself, he will not find faith in God the Lord, the Creator of all. And I am persuaded that we are again coming fast upon the time in the world’s history, when “in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom” will know “not God” (1 Corinthians 1:21); and when again, as of old, it shall please God “by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” And in view of it all, I feel as never I felt before, how holily, how unblamably, ow sacredly, we whom it may please God to call to do the preaching, should conduct this holy work—how humbly, meekly, and again, as of old, not with excellency of speech or wisdom, not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. May God help us all, in these dark and trying times, and when they become still more fearfully dark and trying. ARSH March 18, 1884, page 179.9

(Concluded next week.)