The Signs of the Times, vol. 11

June 18, 1885

“‘Evolution’ and Evolution. (Continued.)” The Signs of the Times 11, 24, p. 372.

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 February 26, 1880, says:— SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.1

“For reasons which almost, if not quite, compel their assent, 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 ours]. 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.” SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.2

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 a 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. SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.3

Again Dr. Ward says in an editorial:— SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.4

“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 is [sic.] this 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.”) SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.5

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 bow in unquestioning credence; for, as is said in another place:— SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.6

“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.” SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.7

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 the Christian faith. And that it is not and cannot be so held and taught, is betrayed by Prof. Francis L. Patton, in an article on this subject originally published in the Interior, and quoted in the “Editorial Notes” of the Independent. He says:— SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.8

“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? Thus 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 ours.) SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.9

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, 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. SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.10

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. SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.11

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:— SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.12

“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.” SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.13

Further he says:— SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.14

“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.” SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.15

Now surely, upon this basis, it is no more than reasonable and consistent, 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. SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.16

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. SITI June 18, 1885, page 372.17

A. T. J.