The Fundamentals: Volume 8, Chapter 2: Evolutionism in the Pulpit*

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 8, Chapter 2: Evolutionism in the Pulpit*

1/9

•

••

•

•CHAPTER II

•

BY AN ,OCCUPANT Q ,F THE , PEW•

, Perhaps the most re1narkable movement in philosophicthought that has occurred in any age was the rise and general ·acceptan ,c,e by sci 1entific circles . of the evo ,]utionary theory ,as

p1~opounded by Dar\vjn, H1J,x]ey and Spencer. It w,as remarkable that men of science, wl1ose pecu liar boast it is that th .eydeal only with estab lished facts, should have so readily departed from this rule and accepted a system . based uponhypothesis only,. and which was; and is still after the lapse offorty years, without a single kncwn fact to support it. Even

when allowance is made for the well-known eagerness ofma,ny sc ,ientists to do away wi ,th a ,l] dualism, , w'hich was Mr.Darwin's aim, if was still remarkable that men of trained intellect should have so promptly accepted at face value his twoprincipal works, in which the expression, ''we may well suppose, , occurs over eight hundre .d tim ,es, as a basis for the argu

ment. P 'ure suppos ,ition ma,y· answer as a f,ounda ·tion for fa,ncif ul sketches 1ike those of Jules Verne'~; but as ground .upon,vhich to base a sober scientific argument it appeais to theaverage man as l ·ittle le,ss ·th lan farci ,c,al. Why i't d'id not soappear to the scient ific mind, the scientific mind may perhapsbe ·able to explain. We frankly confess our inability to do so.

Still 1nore remarkable was the fact that so manr theolog-•1ans and Christian 111inistcrs adopted the new philosophy andwere so ready to give up large portions of Holy Scripture beMcause they could not be reconciled with it; inventing, as .a

~From ''Hera .]d and P 'resbyt :e,r,,'' N '1,vember 22, 1911, Ci~cion.ati, 0. We repr .int this excell ,ent paper as the remarkab ,le utterance of a Christian layman on a most important subject. Ed.

• •

•

•• •

•


2/9

•

•

..

•

•

••

28,

salve to conscience the doctrine that ''the Bible was not in-tended to teach science'', one of those half-truths that arein.ore mi sleading than a downright untruth.

In this . way tl1e sto ,ry of creation a s given in Ge nesis w1sset aside, an ,d th e whole boo ,k dis ,credited .. As Christ cot1ldnot by any logical possibility be made a product of evolutionwithout an absolute denial of His supernatural birth and HisDivine claims, a11d the new birth, or creation, for man in Him

was open t10 the same objection, th ·ese trutl1s were either ob-

scured, minimized, or totally neglect 1ed .and even 1denie ,d. Tosuch lengths were some .of t h e sworn ''defenders of the f aithonce delivered to the saints'' ready to go in order to avoidbeing con sidered as hopelessly '' unscientific'' and ''behind theti1nes in scholar ship. That was twenty years ago or more.

But strange st of all is th ,e f act that a few of these ministers 1ar 'e still clinging to tl1e ''gosp ,el of dirt,' · as Carlyle ap ,tlystyled it, and are referring to it in a w ,ay that indicates , abelief on their part that such reference is still evidence of

•

up-to-date scholarship.As early as 1889 P r ofe ssor Virchow, of Berlin, admittedly

the ablest antbropologi s't of modern times, when summing upthe results of inve stigations of this subject b 1y himself andother leading scientist s, covering a per,iod of twe11ty yea1·s, declared: ' .In vain have the I.inks which should bind man to

•

the monkey been sought; not a single one is there to show.Th ·e so-called proanth1·opos, who should exhibit this link, hasnot been found. · No really learned man asserts that he has

•

seen him. · . . · . P ·erh ,aps some one may have seen himin a dre .am, , but when awake he will never be ab1e to say thathe has approach 1ed him. Even the hope of soon discovering

. him has departed ; it is hardJy spo ,ken of.'' Sl1ortly bef or ,ebis death, some ten years later, in an address before the Inter-

•

national Medical Society, he spoke to the same effect, and

with even a greater degree of positiveness, a .sserting that ''th ,eattempts to find the transition from animal to man have ended•

•

•

• -


3/9

•

Evol utia1iisni in the Pitlpit 29•

•

in total , ail ,ure. The middle link has not been found ,andU1ever will be. ,,

•

•

That the Darwinian theory of descent has in the realms ofnature not ,a single fact to confirm it is the rmequivocal testimony of men as distinguish ,ed in their resp ,ective departmentsof ~cie~1tific esearch, a ,s Dr ,. N. S. Sl1aler iof Ha ,rvard U niver@sity; Dr. Etheiidge, fossiologist of the British Museum; Prof.L. S. Beale, of King's College, London; Prof. Fleischmann,

of Erlangen, and others. .Says Dr. Etheridge: ''Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sl1eer nonsense, not founded on observation andwholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs,of the utter falsity of their views." Professor Beale asserts:''There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, orWas, in any way specially related to, any other organism in .n,a·tur ,e thi,ou .gh ev,oli1tion or by a11y oth 1er process. In sup- ·

• •

port of all naturalistic conjectures con 1ce1·0ing man's origin,there is not at tl1is time a shadow of scientific evidence.''

Professor Fleischmann sums up his estimate of the Darwinian th.eory of the descent of man by affirming that ''it hasin the realms of nature not a single fact to confirm it. It · s

no it the result of scientific r 1esearch, · but purely the pr ,oductof the illlagination."

E,"en Pr 1ofessor Haeckel admits i11 his 1old age that he among all his c ,ontemporarie s stands alone. ''Mos ,t modern,t,

·111vestigators,'' h,e co,nf ess 1es, ' ~ha, re con1e to th 1e c,011clusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinianis1n~•18

an error arid can not he maintained.'' Touching l1is las,i·e .. ffirmation of his natu1·alistic views, Dr. A. C. Dixon telltts that a scholarly man in Geneva said to him at the timethat it was ''the 11ote of the dying swan,' 1 and Haeckel the'~only scientific man of eminence in Germany today who believes in Darwinian evolution.''

Several · notable books bearing on this subject have appeared durit;1g the la st two years. O _ne by George Paulin,

- •

•

•

•

•


4/9

•

•

•

30 The F 1 ndamentals

published by ScribnersJ en ,titled, ''No l S·truggle for , Existence;No N·atural Selection,'' p·resents an array o:f facts in s.upport

of t'be two assertion s made in this title, and against ev,olution,whic 'h must carry conviction to any unprejudiced mind. An ·other to the same effect is by Prof. L. T. Tow ·11send, ntitled,' 'Collaps 1e of · Evolution.'' Still anothe .r, and we believe anepoch-marking book, is from th 1e· pen ,of Prof. E. Dennert,'Ph, D., recently published in Germany, and entitled, ' 'At t 'h e

D,cath Bed of Darwinism. ·' ' A per us al of this , book ''leaves no room for douh 1t,'' 1 as asserted in the preface of the American edition, ''abo ut the decadence of t he , Darwinian theoryin th 1e highest · sc ientific circles of Ger1nany. · And ou.ts,'de ofGermany the same se n timent i s shared generally by the leaders of scientific tl1ought.'' .

Thu s w·e see that, on the t es timo ,ny .of ·the great majorityo·f the ablest of its one -tim ,e leading advocates, the ·evolutio ,n·ary theo1·y is ·in artic ·ulo mortis. Nay, more, it is ·a ready dead,s ince the spirit ( t 'he theory of na tural selection) has longsince departed. Some of it s f rjends may si·t about the r ,e-

.. mains i·ntentiy ·watching for some signs of · re11ewed Jj,fe, butthey watch in vain.

And yet there are ·mini ste ·rs of the Gospel who, dis-•crediting the Bible r1arrative of creation, are Still basing argu-ments upon the Darwini .an theory of the origin of species ;glib 1ly ref 'e1ring to the time ,·when our ancest0 1 r·s we ,re dwellers in t1·ees,'' and to their own ''desce ·nt fr 1om monkeys ·, tad~poles and fis 'h,'' ''a much higher conceptio ·n of man's origin,'' 'accor ·ding to their refined tas ·te, than is that given in Gen 1esis.At, or a little before, the beginning of the decade just endedthis might have p.assed for learned talk about t'h.e ''settled re~suits of science''; but today, amo 1ng those 1 who are 1 rea ,llyabreast o ·f' the movement of scientific thought, it ·is regardedas merely echoing in this g·enera ,tion the al·ways unp ·roved andnow properly rejected speculations 10f a dead and gone ge11efation of infidel philosophers.''

1

I

•


5/9

•

Evolittionis 11i n tlie Pitlpit 31

That amo ,ng tho .se who mourn the passing of evolutiont ·11ere are some naturalists and iothers who clin ,g to it, as saidby Dr •. Goette, the eminent Str3.sburg zoologist, · simply because it seems to funiish ,a much-desired mechanical explana-

t1on of purp :olsive , adapta ,tions, i.s not su ·rpris .ing, since itleaves them nothing but . the hated alternative of acceptingG·enesis with its personal God and creative acts . .

But when we c 1onsider that . the evolutionary theory was

conce :ived in a .gno ,sticis lmJ and born and nt1r·tur ,ed in i1nfide .lity;

that it is the backbone of the des ,tructive higher criticis1nwhich has so viciou sly a ssailed both the integrity and authorityof the Scriptures; that it utterly fails in explaining whatGenesis makes so clear those trem iendous f ac .ts in huma ,11history a11d human nature, the pre senc ,e of ,evil and its attendant suffering; that it off er ·s notl1ing but a n 1egative reply tothat supreme que stion of the ages, I£ a man die, shall helive again? that i·t, in £act, substitutes for a personal Godan infinite and eternal Ene1·gy which is without moral quaJ

ities or positive attributes, is not wise, or . good, or mercifulor j ·ust; cann iot lo ve , or hate, , r ·eward 1or punish ; th ,at it 1de:niesthe personhlity of God and man, and presents them, together

with nature, as under a process of evolution which has neitherbeginning nor end ; and regards man as being simply a passingform of this universal Energy, and thus without free . will,moral responsibility, , or immo 1tality, it becomes evident toevery intelligent layman that .such a system can have no possible points of contact with Christianity. He may well be

pardo ·ned if he views witl1 a.stonishment ministersof

·tl1e~ospel still clinging to it, and harbors a doubt of either theirsincerity or sanity. · . .

· · If it he said that most ministers who accept evolution doso only in its milder form, the supernaturalistic which permits

· of belief in a personal God, but claims that evolution is Hismethod of working, man 3.nd nature being products of it, itmay be said in reply that this view, quite as much as the

•

•


6/9

•

I

•

•

32

naturalistic, necessitates ·the giving up 10f the account inGenes ,is., an ,d gen 1eral ,ly carries wit 'h it a belief ' that th ,e 1 Bible isbut a his ,tory of ' th ,e evolution of the religious id,ea, an 1d n,otwhat it everywhere claims to be, a Divine and supernaturalre~elation. Moreover, it is tha ,t part of the system which they

I

accept (the , origin of · specie .s,) whi .ch has quietly · b,ut fir1nlyseen labeled and shelved as mer ,ely one of the past phases of

. philosophic thought. To hold to it still is to subject them-

selves to doubts in the minds of their hearers as those expressed in r 1egard ·to the , 'hol ,ders of the naturalistic v_e,w

We are not contending that ther 1e is not a sphere in whichthe law of evolution as propound 1ed by Mr. Spencer is operative , On the contr ,ary, w 1e believe there i ,s ; but as said byPhilip 1 Ma ,uro, it is ''entirely confin ,ed to 1 the sphere of th ,eactivities of fallen man.'' It is a most significant fact thatit is from this sphere alo .ne that Mr~ Spencer draws all hisill.ust ,rati ,ons, an 1 f o:r th,e simple re lason t hat 10 1 t ,side of it in allGod's great universe, so .far as known, t .here is not a scintil1aof evidence that the law of e\·olution is, or ever has been, inoperation. This fact has been tl1e stumbling stone of the evo~lutionists f t1om h 1e first. All Mr. Spencer's pompous ph1·ase~ology about a primitive homo ,geneous mas ,s passing in 1endless,cycles from the ''in1perceptible to the perceptible, and backagain from the perceptible to tl1e imperceptible;'' and f 1,.or''indeterminate unif ,ormi ,ty to deter1ninate mult ·if 'ormity, ' has

•

no more foundation in actual fact than an air c .astie or Gulli-ver's travels. ·

The limi ,ts of this , arti ,cle for bid further ref ,erence to thei,n,teresting ,fact- evidence of wl1ich is ,superabundant andconvincing that the law of evolution is strictly confined tothe sphere of human activities, save to note tl1at it is not, asso ·ma ,ny :sup 1pos ,e, a ' ·natural law,', but i,s, to borrow a · term

. from D~. H'. Bush ,n,ell, one of ' ' 1'u11nature~' '' It is the law ofh11man progrf',SS apart from God, and under tl1e leadership ofthe prince of this world system who originated it .

•


7/9

•

•

33•

If, as ·so111e as ert the clergyme11 \Vho accepted the ·evolutionary theory were driven to it by fear of ridicule, or of not

being thought abreast of the trend of moder11 thought, it•was ·not only cowardly on their part, but grossly inconsistentwith their Christian profess ion. For e:ven a partial investigation of the subject ·must have made clear to them that evolu-

• I _ _ l • 11 ,

t1on1sm and Christia11ity are, ess 111tially, intensely ,antagon1s ,t1c.The pulpit efforts of some ministers at reconciling them wouldbe laughable from a logical standpoint were the issues involvednot so serious and the effects upon so1ne of their unthinkinghearers not so deplorable. Certainly, scho la1·ship can no longerbe pleaded as an excuse for clinging to Darwini sm ; and, inthe interest of common honesty, these men ought to eitherdrop their materiali sm or leave tl1e Cl1ristian pt1lpit. .

Among the surprises that await the layman who would

info1·m himself on this subject is the fact that much that wasadvanced by the leaders, including Mr. Darwin himself, insupp iort o,f tl1e evolut~onary hypothes :is was m,erely tentative.It was only the sma ller fry, the tninnow s and gudgeons, thatwere cocksure of its truth, and wl10 gor ,ged tl1e u,nwholesom~food. This may be affirmed with equa] truth of a large part

of what is taught by the ablest of the higher critics • . Nor isthe reason for it hard to find. It becomes apparent imme·diately one perceives how weak, unsatisfactory and illusivetl1e evide11ce is that they off er in support of their destructivetheories ; evidence so insufficient and even trivial that, as said ·by Sir Robert Anderso11, it would be laughed out of anycour t in Christen 1dom. ·

The layman, coming to a knowledge of this fact,- findshis first feeling to be one of astonishment that men callingthemselves Christians can on grounds so frivolous repudiatelarge parts of Scripture, and deliberately sow the seed ofunf aith in tl1e 111inds nd hearts of thou san ds of their hea1·ers .This is apt to be followed by one of indign~tion at ,the 101,v

moral qu~Iity and co,vardic e of their action in thus under~• •

•• •

•• ..

•

•

•

•

•

•


8/9

•

•

--- ~

•

••

•

34 The Fundamentals•

•

•

mining the faith of the Cl1urch while accepting its pay. Forit is noticeable that however great tl1eir 1change . of attitt1cle

toward the Scriptures and tl1e doctrinal standards of thechurches they are supposed to s 1erve 1nay be, no change isever perceptible in the attitude of these gentlemen tow ard theacceptance of the salaries paid by the se church 1es. And thisdespite the fact that, accorcling to their ow11 witness of them-

elve s, tl1eir strong point is the po ssess ion a11d preaching ofa very superior ,quality of ethics ( ?) . Indeed, in li ,stening tothem , one ca11 hardly escaPe the co11viction that righteoitsnesJlersona1 · and civic, . wa s a thing almost un~no,¥n before their .advent ·

Certainly no one can bla1ne the ordinary individual who,unskilled · in the intellectual subleties and plausible sophistriesby which thes ,e gentJe ,men seek to just ,ify their course, finds

a feeling akin to disgust taking possssion of hin1 as he listensto th ,eir talk abqut being governed solely by ,a desire fortruth , in their action ,s in tl1i,s. matter, and of the tenfold ·greater comfort, plea su r e and profit they derive from re ,ading their polychron1e Bibles; all of which, to his untrainedanel practical mind, sounds like unmitigate ,d pharisaical cant.It is like a man who, having take11 a \tvay all the foundationt1nder his , l1ot1se sa,~e a · fe\\ ~ slencler prop s, lies down in it dec1a1·ing that he doe s o with a sense of security a.nd peace to ,which he had been a stranger b 1ef ,ore.

Apparently the wild guesswork of a profligate and infidellike Astruc, o ·r the equally wild pl1ilologicaJ spectt1ations ofa skep tic like Welll1au se n, have 1nore weight with thes ,e S1el,,

e1·s after truth than ha s the thus , saith the Lord Jehovahof the inspired propl1et , or the testimqny of tl1e Son ofGod, an ,d of His apostles. Moreov er, they s ,,em to coimpletelyigno re, and ·to be utterly unable to te st ify from personal experience to, the rege11e1·ati11g ow ,er of the Holy Spiri t working upon men s hea1·ts th r 1ough the w·ord.

Far better ,, ,oul d it be for all concerned if these ministers•

'

' •••

I


9/9

Documents

The Fundamentals: Volume 8, Chapter 2: Evolutionism in the Pulpit*