absurdities; he speaks of eyes, ears, fins, wings and legs--five. I only
called attention to eyes and legs--two. The evolutionist guesses himself
away from God, but he only makes matters worse. How long did the
"light waves" have to play on the skin before the eyes came out? The
evolutionist is very deliberate; he is long on time. He would certainly
give the eye thousands of years, if not millions, in which to develop;
but how could he be sure that the light waves played all the time in one
place or played in the same place generation after generation until the
development was complete? And why did the light waves quit playing when
two eyes were perfected? Why did they not keep on playing until there
were eyes all over the body? Why do they not play to-day, so that we may
see eyes in process of development? And if the light waves created the
eyes, why did they not create them strong enough to bear the light? Why
did the light waves make eyes and then make eyelids to keep the light
out of the eyes?
And so with the ears. They must have gone _in_ "to hear" instead of
_out_, and wasn't it lucky that they happened to go in on opposite sides
of the head instead of cater-cornered or at random? Is it not easier to
believe in a God who can make the eye, the ear, the fin, the wing, and
the leg, as well as the light, the sound, the air, the water and the
land?
There is such an abundance of ludicrous material that it is hard to
resist the temptation to continue illustrations indefinitely, but a few
more will be sufficient. In order that you may be prepared to ridicule
these pseudo-scientists who come to you with guesses instead of facts,
let me give you three recent bits of evolutionary lore.
Last November I was passing through Philadelphia and read in an
afternoon paper a report of an address delivered in that city by a
college professor employed in extension work. Here is an extract from
the paper's account of the speech: "Evidence that early men climbed
trees with their feet lies in the way we wear the heels of our
shoes--more at the outside. A baby can wiggle its big toe without
wiggling its other toes--an indication that it once used its big toe in
climbing trees." What a consolation it must be to mothers to know that
the baby is not to be blamed for wiggling the big toe without wiggling
the other toes. It cannot help it, poor little thing; it is an
inheritance from "the tree man," so the evolutionists tell us.
And here is another extract: "We often dream of falling. Those who fell
out of the trees some fifty thousand years ago and were killed, of
course, had no descendants. So those who fell and were _not_ hurt, of
course, lived, and so we are never hurt in our dreams of falling." Of
course, if we were actually descended from the inhabitants of trees, it
would seem quite likely that we descended from those that were _not_
killed in falling. But they must have been badly frightened if the
impression made upon their feeble minds could have lasted for fifty
thousand years and still be vivid enough to scare us.
If the Bible said anything so idiotic as these guessers put forth in
the name of science, scientists would have a great time ridiculing the
sacred pages, but men who scoff at the recorded interpretation of
dreams by Joseph and Daniel seem to be able to swallow the amusing
interpretations offered by the Pennsylvania professor.
A few months ago the _Sunday School Times_ quoted a professor in an
Illinois University as saying that the great day in history was the day
when a water puppy crawled up on the land and, deciding to be a land
animal, became man's progenitor. If these scientific speculators
can agree upon the day they will probably insist on our abandoning
Washington's birthday, the Fourth of July, and even Christmas, in order
to join with the whole world in celebrating "Water Puppy Day."
Within the last few weeks the papers published a dispatch from Paris
to the effect that an "eminent scientist" announced that he had
communicated with the spirit of a dog and learned from the dog that it
was happy. Must we believe this, too?
But is the law of "natural selection" a sufficient explanation, or a
more satisfactory explanation, than sexual selection? It is based on the
theory that where there is an advantage in any characteristic, animals
that possess this characteristic survive and propagate their kind. This,
according to Darwin's argument, leads to progress through the "survival
of the fittest." This law or principle (natural selection), so carefully
worked out by Darwin, is being given less and less weight by scientists.
Darwin himself admits that he "perhaps attributed too much to the action
of natural selection and the survival of the fittest" (page 76). John
Burroughs, the naturalist, rejects it in a recent magazine article. The
followers of Darwin are trying to retain evolution while rejecting the
arguments that led Darwin to accept it as an explanation of the varied
life on the planet. Some evolutionists reject Darwin's line of descent
and believe that man, instead of coming from the ape, branched off from
a common ancestor farther back, but "cousin" ape is as objectionable as
"grandpa" ape.
While "survival of the fittest" may seem plausible when applied to
individuals of the same species, it affords no explanation whatever,
of the almost infinite number of creatures that have come under man's
observation. To believe that natural selection, sexual selection or any
other kind of selection can account for the countless differences we see
about us requires more faith in _chance_ than a Christian is required to
have in God.
Is it conceivable that the hawk and the hummingbird, the spider and the
honey bee, the turkey gobbler and the mocking-bird, the butterfly and
the eagle, the ostrich and the wren, the tree toad and the elephant,
the giraffe and the kangaroo, the wolf and the lamb should all be the
descendants of a common ancestor? Yet these and all other creatures must
be blood relatives if man is next of kin to the monkey.
If the evolutionists are correct; if it is true that all that we see is
the result of development from one or a few invisible germs of life,
then, in plants as well as in animals there must be a line of descent
connecting all the trees and vegetables and flowers with a common
ancestry. Does it not strain the imagination to the breaking point to
believe that the oak, the cedar, the pine and the palm are all the
progeny of one ancient seed and that this seed was also the ancestor
of wheat and corn, potato and tomato, onion and sugar beet, rose and
violet, orchid and daisy, mountain flower and magnolia? Is it not more
rational to believe in _God_ and explain the varieties of life in terms
of divine power than to waste our lives in ridiculous attempts to
explain the unexplainable? There is no mortification in admitting that
there are insoluble mysteries; but it is shameful to spend the time that
God has given for nobler use in vain attempts to exclude God from His
own universe and to find in chance a substitute for God's power and
wisdom and love.
While evolution in plant life and in animal life _up to the highest form
of animal_ might, if there were proof of it, be admitted without raising
a presumption that would compel us to give a brute origin to man, why
should we admit a thing of which there is no proof? Why should we
encourage the guesses of these speculators and thus weaken our power
to protest when they attempt the leap from the monkey to man? Let the
evolutionist furnish his proof.
Although our chief concern is in protecting man from the demoralization
involved in accepting a brute ancestry, it is better to put the
advocates of evolution upon the defensive and challenge them to produce
proof in support of their hypothesis in plant life and in the animal
world. They will be kept so busy trying to find support for their
hypothesis in the kingdoms below man that they will have little time
left to combat the Word of God in respect to man's origin. Evolution
joins issue with the Mosaic account of creation. God's law, as stated
in Genesis, is _reproduction according to kind_; evolution implies
reproduction _not_ according to kind. While the process of change
implied in evolution is covered up in endless eons of time it is
_change_ nevertheless. The Bible does not say that reproduction shall
be _nearly_ according to kind or _seemingly_ according to kind. The
statement is positive that it is _according to kind_, and that does not
leave any room for the _changes_ however gradual or imperceptible that
are necessary to support the evolutionary hypothesis.
We see about us everywhere and always proof of the Bible law, viz.,
reproduction according to kind; we find nothing in the universe to
support Darwin's doctrine of reproduction other than of kind.
If you question the possibility of such changes as the Darwinian
doctrine supposes you are reminded that the scientific speculators have
raised the time limit. "If ten million years are not sufficient, take
twenty," they say: "If fifty million years are not enough take one or
two hundred millions." That accuracy is not essential in such guessing
may be inferred from the fact that the estimates of the time that has
elapsed since life began on the earth, vary from less than twenty-five
million years to more than three hundred million. Darwin estimated this
period at two hundred million years while Darwin's son estimated it at
fifty-seven million.
It requires more than millions of years to account for the varieties of
life that inhabit the earth; it requires a Creator, unlimited in power,
unlimited intelligence, and unlimited love.
But the doctrine of evolution is sometimes carried farther than that.
A short while ago Canon Barnes, of Westminster Abbey, startled his
congregation by an interpretation of evolution that ran like this: "It
now seems highly probable (probability again) that from some fundamental
stuff in the universe the electrons arose. From them came matter.
From matter, life emerged. From life came mind. From mind, spiritual
consciousness was developing. There was a time when matter, life and
mind, and the soul of man were not, but now they are. Each has arisen as
a part of the vast scheme planned by God." (An American professor in a
Christian college has recently expressed himself along substantially the
same lines.)
But what has God been doing since the "stuff" began to develop? The
verbs used by Canon Barnes indicate an internal development unaided from
above. "Arose, came, emerged, etc.," all exclude the idea that God is
within reach or call in man's extremity.
When I was a boy in college the materialists began with matter separated
into infinitely small particles and every particle separated from every
other particle by distance infinitely great. But now they say that it
takes 1,740 electrons to make an atom of infinite fineness. God, they
insist, has not had anything to do with this universe since 1,740
electrons formed a chorus and sang, "We'll be an atom by and by."
It requires measureless credulity to enable one to believe that all that
we see about us came by chance, by a series of happy-go-lucky accidents.
If only an infinite God could have formed hydrogen and oxygen and united
them in just the right proportions to produce water--the daily need of
every living thing--scattered among the flowers all the colours of the
rainbow and every variety of perfume, adjusted the mocking-bird's throat
to its musical scale, and fashioned a soul for man, why should we want
to imprison such a God in an impenetrable past? This is a living world;
why not a _living_ God upon the throne? Why not allow Him to work _now_?
Darwin is so sure that his theory is correct that he is ready to accuse
the Creator of trying to deceive man if the theory is not sound. On page
41 he says: "To take any other view is to admit that our structure and
that of all animals about us, is a mere snare to entrap our judgment;"
as if the Almighty were in duty bound to make each species so
separate from every other that _no one_ could possibly be confused by
resemblances. There would seem to be differences enough. To put man in a
class with the chimpanzee because of any resemblances that may be found
is so unreasonable that the masses have never accepted it.
If we see houses of different size, from one room to one hundred, we
do not say that the large houses grew out of small ones, but that the
architect that could plan one could plan all.
But a groundless hypothesis--even an absurd one--would be unworthy of
notice if it did no harm. This hypothesis, however, does incalculable
harm. It teaches that Christianity impairs the race physically. That
was the first implication at which I revolted. It led me to review
the doctrine and reject it entirely. If hatred is the law of man's
development; that is, if man has reached his present perfection by a
cruel law under which the strong kill off the weak--then, if there is
any logic that can bind the human mind, we must turn backward toward the
brute if we dare to substitute the law of love for the law of hate. That
is the conclusion that I reached and it is the conclusion that Darwin
himself reached. On pages 149-50 he says: "With savages the weak in body
or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a
vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our
utmost to check the progress of elimination. We build asylums for the
imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; our medical
experts exert their utmost skill to save the lives of every one to the
last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved
thousands who from weak constitutions would have succumbed to smallpox.
Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No
one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that
this must be highly injurious to the race of man."
This confession deserves analysis. First, he commends, by implication,
the savage method of eliminating the weak, while, by implication, he
condemns "civilized men" for prolonging the life of the weak. He
even blames vaccination because it has preserved thousands who might
otherwise have succumbed (for the benefit of the race?). Can you imagine
anything more brutal? And then note the low level of the argument. "No
one who has attended the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that
this must be highly injurious to the race of man." All on a brute basis.
His hypothesis breaks down here. The minds which, according to Darwin,
are developed by natural selection and sexual selection, use their power
to suspend the law by which they have reached their high positions.
Medicine is one of the greatest of the sciences and its chief object is
to save life and strengthen the weak. That, Darwin complains, interferes
with "the survival of the fittest." If he complains of vaccination, what
would he say of the more recent discovery of remedies for typhoid fever,
yellow fever and the black plague? And what would he think of saving
weak babies by pasteurizing milk and of the efforts to find a specific
for tuberculosis and cancer? Can such a barbarous doctrine be sound?
But Darwin's doctrine is even more destructive. His heart rebels against
the "hard reason" upon which his heartless hypothesis is built. He says:
"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly the
result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as a
part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner
indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our
sympathy even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in
the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself while
performing an operation, for he knows he is acting for the good of
his patient; but if we were to intentionally neglect the weak and the
helpless, it could be only for a contingent benefit, with overwhelming
present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubted bad effects of the
weak surviving and propagating their kind."
The moral nature which, according to Darwin, is also developed by
natural selection and sexual selection, repudiates the brutal law
to which, if his reasoning is correct, it owes its origin. Can that
doctrine be accepted as scientific when its author admits that we cannot
apply it "without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature"? On
the contrary, civilization is measured by the moral revolt against the
cruel doctrine developed by Darwin.
Darwin rightly decided to suspend his doctrine, even at the risk of
impairing the race. But some of his followers are more hardened. A few
years ago I read a book in which the author defended the use of alcohol
on the ground that it rendered a service to society by killing off the
degenerates. And this argument was advanced by a scientist in the fall
of 1920 at a congress against alcohol.
The language which I have quoted proves that Darwinism is directly
antagonistic to Christianity, which boasts of its eleemosynary
institutions and of the care it bestows on the weak and the helpless.
Darwin, by putting man on a brute basis and ignoring spiritual values,
attacks the very foundations of Christianity.
Those who accept Darwin's views are in the habit of saying that it need
not lessen their reverence for God to believe that the Creator fashioned
a germ of life and endowed it with power to develop into what we see
to-day. It is true that a God who could make man as he is, could have
made him by the long-drawn-out process suggested by Darwin. To do either
would require infinite power, beyond the ability of man to comprehend.
But what is the _natural tendency_ of Darwin's doctrine?
Will man's attitude toward Darwin's God be the same as it would be
toward the God of Moses? Will the believer in Darwin's God be as
conscious of God's presence in his daily life? Will he be as sensitive
to God's will and as anxious to find out what God wants him to do?
Will the believer in Darwin's God be as fervent in prayer and as open to
the reception of divine suggestions?
I shall later trace the influence of Darwinism on world peace when the
doctrine is espoused by one bold enough to carry it to its logical
conclusion, but I must now point out its natural and logical effect upon
young Christians.
A boy is born in a Christian family; as soon as he is able to join words
together into sentences his mother teaches him to lisp the child's
prayer: "Now I lay me down to sleep; I pray the Lord my soul to keep; if
I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take." A little
later the boy is taught the Lord's Prayer and each day he lays his
petition before the Heavenly Father: "Give us this day our daily bread";
"Lead us not into temptation"; "Deliver us from evil"; "Forgive our
trespasses"; etc.
He talks with God. He goes to Sunday school and learns that the Heavenly
Father is even more kind than earthly parents; he hears the preacher
tell how precious our lives are in the sight of God--how even a sparrow
cannot fall to the ground without His notice. All his faith is built
upon the Book that informs him that he is made in the image of God; that
Christ came to reveal God to man and to be man's Saviour.
Then he goes to college and a learned professor leads him through a book
600 pages thick, largely devoted to resemblances between man and the
beasts about him. His attention is called to a point in the ear that is
like a point in the ear of the ourang, to canine teeth, to muscles like
those by which a horse moves his ears.
He is then told that everything found in a human brain is found in
miniature in a brute brain.
And how about morals? He is assured that the development of the moral
sense can be explained on a brute basis without any act of, or aid from,
God. (See pages 113-114.)
No mention of religion, the only basis for morality; not a suggestion of
a sense of responsibility to God--nothing but cold, clammy materialism!
Darwinism transforms the Bible into a story book and reduces Christ to
man's level. It gives him an ape for an ancestor on His mother's side at
least and, as many evolutionists believe, on His Father's side also.
The instructor gives the student a new family tree millions of years
long, with its roots in the water (marine animals) and then sets him
adrift, with infinite capacity for good or evil but with no light to
guide him, no compass to direct him and no chart of the sea of life!
No wonder so large a percentage of the boys and girls who go from Sunday
schools and churches to colleges (sometimes as high as seventy-five per
cent.) never return to religious work. How can one feel God's presence
in his daily life if Darwin's reasoning is sound? This restraining
influence, more potent than any external force, is paralyzed when God
is put so far away. How can one believe in prayer if, for millions of
years, God has never touched a human life or laid His hand upon the
destiny of the human race? What mockery to petition or implore, if God
neither hears nor answers. Elijah taunted the prophets of Baal
when their god failed to answer with fire; "Cry aloud," he said,
"peradventure he sleepeth." Darwin mocks the Christians even more
cruelly; he tells us that our God has been asleep for millions of years.
Even worse, he does not affirm that Jehovah was ever awake. Nowhere does
he collect for the reader the evidences of a Creative Power and call
upon man to worship and obey God. The great scientist is, if I may
borrow a phrase, "too much absorbed in the things infinitely small to
consider the things infinitely great." Darwinism chills the spiritual
nature and quenches the fires of religious enthusiasm. If the proof in
support of Darwinism does not compel acceptance--and it does not--why
substitute it for an account of the Creation that links man directly
with the Creator and holds before him an example to be imitated? As the
eminent theologian, Charles Hodge, says: "The Scriptural doctrine (of
Creation) accounts for the spiritual nature of man, and meets all his
spiritual necessities. It gives him an object of adoration, love and
confidence. It reveals the Being on whom his indestructible sense of
responsibility terminates. The truth of this doctrine, therefore,
rests not only upon the authority of the Scriptures but on the very
constitution of our nature."
I have spoken of what would seem to be the natural and logical effect of
the Darwin hypothesis on the minds of the young. This view is confirmed
by its _actual_ effect on Darwin himself. In his "Life and Letters," he
says: "I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot
spare time to answer your questions fully--nor indeed can they be
answered. Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the
habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence.
For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As
for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting
vague probabilities." It will be seen that science, according to Darwin,
has nothing to do with Christ (except to discredit _revelation_ which
makes Christ's mission known to men). Darwin himself does not believe
that there has ever been _any revelation_, which, of course, excludes
Christ. It will be seen also that he has no definite views on the
_future life_--"every man," he says, "must judge for himself between
_conflicting vague probabilities_."
It is fair to conclude that it was _his own doctrine_ that led him
astray, for in the same connection (in "Life and Letters") he says
that when aboard the _Beagle_ he was called "orthodox and was heartily
laughed at by several of the officers for quoting the Bible as an
unanswerable authority on some point of morality." In the same
connection he thus describes his change and his final attitude: "When
thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause, having an
intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve
to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the
time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the 'Origin of Species';
and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many
fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt: _Can_ the mind
of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low
as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such
grand conclusions?
"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.
The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for
one must be content to remain an Agnostic."