EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE.
The interest in the question of how things came to be centers for
the believer in the Bible narrative and doctrine. We have been
accustomed to bring all things to Bible testing and so far with
assured results. The Bible has never failed and we believe will not
fail now. We therefore ask, What does it teach as to Evolution? We
are amazed to find Evolution makes no appeal to the Bible, and the
Bible makes no allusion to Evolution. They are strangers to each
other. The argument from Scripture for Evolution has not yet been
written. The best the theistic evolutionist can say as to the Bible
account of the origin of man is an apology for its narratives, or
some explanation which vaporizes its facts into figures of speech.
We have heretofore given the Bible account and that of Evolution
printed in parallel columns (p. 61). The reader is again referred to
these, and asked to notice the differences in these two accounts.
The Bible account is not the description of the slow transformation
of an ape into a man-like ape, and that into an ape-like man, and
that into a cave man, and he into a stone-tool man, and that again
into a pottery-making savage, and he into a weapon-making barbarian,
and he into a Chinese and after that into a Roman or Greek, and
last into an Englishman and American and he into a spiritual being
in the image and likeness of God. Common literary honesty demands
that we give an author his own intended meaning. If the Bible
meant Evolution why did it not give it? Two accounts more utterly
dissimilar could scarcely be given than the Bible account of man's
creation and the account of Evolution. We may take one or other and
be consistent but the rules of literary exegesis and common sense
and Scripture alike forbid taking both.
To call it "poetry" or an "allegory" is no explanation. Why did not
the writer make poetry or allegory which had some agreement with
facts? Why lead us into a perplexing situation when he might as well
have given us some other account or omitted it altogether?
The differences between these two accounts are obvious. The
Bible account describes a definite act, the Evolution account
a long-continued process through millions of years. The Bible
account is a production _de novo_ of a new and original creature;
the Evolution account gives one of a numerous line of ancestors;
the Bible account presents us with a perfect creature "in the
likeness of God;" the Evolution account with a brute slightly
raised above the common herd. The Bible account gives a descriptive
narrative with accompanying events; the Evolution account leaves
all the events unknown save as guessed at by the imagination of the
various writers. The Bible account gives a high and noble origin
by a special and creative act of his Creator; Evolution tells of
a degraded origin from a brute by the operation of blind forces.
The Bible account is noble and satisfying and, to one who believes
in an omnipotent God, credible, calling for belief in one creative
act; the Evolution account is filled with difficulties and paradoxes
calling for the wildest stretch of imagination and the utmost
application of credulity.
The Bible account is frequently referred to as an actual history
by other Scripture writers; the evolutionary account has not one
Scripture reference or the slightest hint from Scripture of its
having any place whatever in fact. The Bible account agrees with
and is the basis of the spiritual teachings of the Bible; the
evolutionary account has no such agreement and needs to be explained
away to be allowed any place whatever in sacred writings. If the
Bible is the book the common consent of the wisest of all mankind
and of every age has affirmed it to be, it should have some
intimation of this "greatest discovery of the human mind." For the
Bible does touch on the greatest problems of the world and life.
Not only does the Bible give a very different account of the
origin of man, but also of nature. Its definition of the beginning
of things is as follows: "By faith we understand that the worlds
have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not
been made out of things which do appear." (Heb. 11:3.) The term it
applies to this is Creation. It gives also a circumstantial account
of the coming of the present order as we have it, closing with man's
creation.
EVOLUTION'S INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE.
In order to bring the evolutionary theories within the possibility
of Bible sanction, a theory of interpretation is adopted which calls
the narratives of Creation and the Fall myths, legends, allegories,
parables, "scenic representation," or "idealized history" according
to the theological bias of the interpreter. These all amount to
the same thing, for they do away with the historical value of the
accounts. It is only a play upon words to say they are "parables"
for parables are not unhistorical. Every one of Christ's parables
is true to life and facts. It is claimed that the Bible narratives
are poetry and therefore are not historical. The evolutionist for
his purpose confounds poetry and fiction. They are not synonymous.
A poetical form does not imply fictitiousness. The Psalms have much
history under their poetical form. But the first chapter of Genesis
is not poetry. Hebrew poetry has a well-defined form as seen in the
poetical books. This chapter does not conform to that form, and
accordingly it is printed not in poetical form but as prose in the
Revised Version. The mere repetition of certain phrases is not the
mark of poetry, but is characteristic of the oriental languages in
which the Bible was written.
But who is to decide what in the Bible is historical and what is
not? What is to hinder anyone from so discarding any fact whatever
in the Bible? Why has not the enemy of Christianity the same
right to apply this reasoning to the accounts of the death and
resurrection of Christ? Where will this process end? The proclaimer
of such theories is putting a weapon into the hands of the opponent
of Christianity that he will use one day to the destruction of the
faith of many. Once having permission to apply these terms, it is
easy to make these narratives, or anything else in the Bible, mean
anything or nothing as is desired. As an ancient writer said,
"Twenty doctors can make a text read twenty different ways." We
protest against this loose method of interpretation for many reasons:
1. We object to every new theory interpreting the Bible to suit
itself.
2. There is not the slightest warrant in these narratives or
elsewhere for such interpretation. They are given as facts and are
always so treated. Creation and the Fall are everywhere spoken of as
actual facts both by Christ and all other Scripture writers.
3. It is on this system of interpretation that every false system
rests, such as Mormonism. All the modern vagaries support themselves
from Scripture by accommodation of its language to their doctrines.
4. The Bible is not a book of puzzles, a delphic oracle, to be read
in any way suited to the occasion or desires. It has a plain meaning
and is for everyday people and everyday needs.
5. The acceptance of the Bible account as unquestioned fact and the
literal interpretation of it by Christ and his apostles ought to be
enough for anyone calling himself Christian or even for any other
who will accept good human testimony. These writers were 1900 years
nearer the date of the events in question than we. They had access
to knowledge now lost to us. From any standpoint, we may rest our
view of these narratives on the testimony of the New Testament
Scriptures. The references of the New Testament to the Old are
numbered by hundreds. Any Bible with references, or any text book or
Bible with Helps will show these. It is enough here to give those
Christ refers to.
Christ himself cites from twelve books and about twenty-four
narratives as follows: Creation, Matt. 19:4; Law of Marriage, Matt.
19:5; Cain and Abel, Matt. 23:35; The Deluge, Matt. 24:37; Abraham,
John 8:56; Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's wife, Luke 17:28-32; Manna,
John 6:49; Brazen Serpent, John 3:14; Shew Bread, Matt. 12:3, 4;
Elijah and his Miracles, Luke 4:25, 26; Naaman, Luke 4:27; Tyre and
Sidon, Matt. 11:22; Jonah and "The Whale," Matt. 12:39; The Books of
Moses, John 5:46; The Psalms, Luke 20:42; Moses and The Prophets,
Luke 24:27; Isaiah, Matt. 13:14; Daniel's Prophecies, Matt. 24:15;
Malachi, Matt. 11:10; The entire Old Testament, Luke 24:44. Of
not one of these does he convey the slightest hint of aught but
trustworthiness and literal interpretation.
6. The still more serious issue is presented of asserting that
both Paul and Christ either did not know that these were myths, or
knowing so gave no intimation that they used them in any way other
than as true narratives. This would not only shake all confidence
in Christ as divine and his apostles as inspired, but would shake
all confidence in any fact or teaching from Scripture whatever. For
Scripture rests on facts and these facts on witnesses. To these,
appeal is constantly made. On the truth of these all depends. Here
then is a "mythical" Adam made the basis of marriage; a "mythical"
Adam and his fall, the argument for man's need and Christ's work,
and the same "mythical" Adam made the proof of the resurrection. In
short the whole system of Bible truth is attacked by these theories,
from credibility in Christ himself to the last hope of the believer
in the world to come.
Whom shall we believe? Shall we credit Evolution which admits that
its theory is unproven and full of difficulties, with not a single
case of Evolution to support it, nor a power which could produce it,
and with countless facts to antagonize it, or shall we believe Jesus
Christ who was never mistaken, or false in his facts, or teachings,
and who believed these chapters, cited them and accepted their
narratives without question?
EVOLUTION AND BIBLE DOCTRINES.
We have arrived at the vital point in this discussion. If Evolution
were only a scientific question, it would interest a limited circle.
As a deeply religious question it interests all. That Evolution
affects vitally all evangelical belief is apparent to the most
superficial inquirer. It is not only a matter of historic fact but
of doctrinal teaching. Man's nature and need as a descendant from
the brute is one thing, and as a spiritual being, fallen from the
likeness of God, another. The responsibility in either case is very
different and therefore has to do with eternal destiny for weal or
woe, and also with the work of Christ.
The theology of the Higher Criticism which is also the theology of
Evolution, of which it is the Biblical branch, is thus summed up
by an evolutionary writer, in a recent article giving the articles
of belief of the theology of Evolution: "The Bible can no longer
speak with unquestioned authority.... Poor old Adam disappears....
Christ's divinity is only such as we may possess ... the atonement
is only such as we see in all life and nature.... As to the future
life we find ourselves left very much in the dark.... We no longer
regard going to heaven as the center of our interest." (Theodore D.
Bacon quoted in _Homiletic Review_, Nov. 1902.)
Evolution teaches, as stated by Dr. George A. Gordon, of Boston:
"Man's state and fate is on account of the irrationality he has
brought up with him from the animal world." (_Immortality and the
New Theodicy_, p. 100.) The future of man according to Evolution
is that as he has risen from the brute state he ought not to be
punished for his defects but rather rewarded for having done so
well. Evolution teaches that man has in himself the elements of his
salvation. These if developed will produce the change he needs for
this world and that to come. He will proceed on the same lines as he
has traveled to reach his present state. Development is the Saviour
of Evolution. The Bible says that to develop man is to develop sin
and, "Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." It requires
the intervention of the Supernatural in Regeneration to save man.
Evolution is self-saving.
The future is radically affected by the theory of Evolution. The
development of mankind is its objective point. To bring man to a
point of development will bring the Kingdom of Heaven. The fate of
the individual is not made much of. He is sacrificed for the race
or species. But while not much is made of the individual the general
teaching is that somehow it will be well with all at last. It is
a fact that all universalists are evolutionists. Evolution makes
Heaven and Hell terms which mean little or nothing. The present
social state of man is the great quest. Evolution is a bridge which
reaches neither shore. It knows not whence man came nor where he
goes.
1. The Bible rests its doctrines upon its facts. There is no
character in Scripture aside from Christ upon whose historical
character so much Scripture doctrine depends as upon Adam. The
creation of man is made the basis for the sanctity of marriage by
Christ, who quotes the words of the account in Genesis. (Matt.
19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9.) Paul makes this narrative the basis of his
great argument for the state and need of man and the work of Christ.
"Through one man sin entered into the world and death through
sin.... Death reigned from Adam to Moses.... By the trespass of the
one the many died ... the judgment came of one unto condemnation
... as through the one man's disobedience the many were made
sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be
made righteous." (Rom. 5:12-21, R. V.) Here the actuality of the
narrative is the very basis of the declaration of man's state in
sin and a type of the extent and nature of Christ's work. So also
the use by Paul in the account of the resurrection doctrine: "As in
Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor.
15:22-45.)
2. The Bible teaches that man was made in the image of God. That
image was Christ who is elsewhere declared to be "the effulgence of
his glory and the very image of his substance." (Heb. 1:3.) In this
image man was made. This is a very different picture presented to us
from that given by the evolutionist of a brute "which could stand on
its hind legs and throw things with its forelegs."
3. The Bible teaches that all are guilty and condemned and lost,
and without excuse. It teaches that man fell from a high state as
a race and as a race is responsible for his condition. It cites
death as the proof of this. It teaches that man is inherently averse
to God by nature and wilfully continues to do wrong and in short
is condemned and lost. It teaches that he once had the truth and
wilfully gave it up for sin. That he does so now in spite of the law
of God written in his conscience and that out of Christ he is lost
and without hope. (Rom. 1-5; Ep. 2:1-3, 11, 12.)
4. The Bible teaches that what man needs is a pardon, a
reconciliation with God, a ransom, a regeneration, a resurrection.
He must be translated from death to life, from the kingdom of
darkness to that of light. If he has not all this he is lost and
doomed.
5. The Bible teaches that in order that man might enjoy this, Christ
had to come and die, "the just for the unjust that he might bring
us to God." He died as a sacrifice, as an offering, as a ransom, as
a propitiation, as a reconciliation. His death made it possible in
justice as well as in mercy to save man.
6. The Bible gives a description of man's means of salvation which
is most opposite to the hope held out by Evolution. It is by a
radical and supernatural change that he becomes right and only
as all men so change or are changed will the world become right.
Conversion is not Evolution but regeneration, the implanting of a
new and opposite nature.
7. The Bible teaches a different outcome of human life and history.
It points to an end by supernatural means to the world and a
judgment for mankind and the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven
by supernatural means. It cites the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah and the Deluge as examples of the world's end. It gives the
most awful combination of earthly figures as the picture of the
doom of the impenitent and the most beautiful figures earth and sky
can furnish or the mind of man conceive as the home of the saved.
Nothing could be more different than the theologies of Evolution and
of the Bible.
Many well-meant volumes have been written to reconcile Evolution
and evangelical belief. None are satisfying, although the eagerness
with which some were at first received are witness to the desire to
retain both beliefs.
The theistic evolutionist thinks that to find a place for the
Creator somewhere along the line is enough. St. James rebukes this
insufficient theology in these words: "Thou believest that there is
one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
(Jas. 2:19.) So also Christ himself said: "Ye believe in God believe
also in me.... I am the way, the truth and the life.... No man
cometh unto the Father but by me.... He that honoreth not the Son
honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.... For as the Father
hath life in himself even so gave he to the Son also to have life in
himself.... He hath committed all judgment unto the Son that all men
may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth
not the Son honoreth not the Father." Theism then is not enough in
the opinion of Jesus Christ.
The whole Christian system is in question in this theory. The
whole aim of Evolution is to dispose of the supernatural as much
as possible. The radical evolutionist gets rid of God entirely he
thinks. The theistic evolutionist limits the interference of the
supernatural to the creation of matter, of life, of man's spiritual
nature, and the incarnation and work of Christ. The tendency of
evolution is to make the miracles of Christ mythical and the
phenomena of conversion natural. The theistic evolutionist is on
a side hill. He must go up or down. He is not consistent, and, as
the human mind asserts its right to consistency, he is forced,
willingly or unwillingly, often unconsciously, to the one side or
the other, and he finds himself led along lines which take him
far from evangelical belief. In its consistent form, Evolution
leaves no room for a Creator. Indeed Haeckel, the greatest of
living evolutionists and the legitimate successor to Darwin's
place and greatness, states, as already quoted, thus: "It entirely
excludes supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious act
of a personal character. Nothing will make the full meaning of
the theory of descent clearer than calling it the non-miraculous
theory of creation." (_History of Creation_, pp. 397, 422.) Another
evolutionist, Carl Vogt, says: "Evolution turns the Creator out
of doors." Infidels all accept of it gladly. Every atheist is an
evolutionist.
EVOLUTION A RELIC OF HEATHENISM.
James Freeman Clark thus writes: "In the system of the Greek and
Scandinavian mythology, spirit is evolved from matter; matter up
to spirit works. They begin with the lowest form of being; night,
chaos, a mundane egg, and evolve the higher gods therefrom." (_Ten
Great Religions_, p. 231.)
Sir J. William Dawson, the late eminent geologist of Canada, writes
of the theory as follows: "The evolutionist doctrine is one of the
strangest phenomena of humanity. It existed most naturally in the
oldest philosophy and poetry, in connection with the crudest and
most uncritical attempts of the human mind to grasp the system
of nature; but that in our day a system destitute of any shadow
of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of
speech and by arbitrary and artificial coherence of its own parts,
should be accepted as a philosophy and should find able adherents to
string upon its thread of hypothesis our vast and weighty stores of
knowledge, is surpassingly strange." (_Story of the Earth and Man_,
p. 317.)
Evolution is working towards a pantheistic atheism. This is
expressed in the creed of the late Cecil Rhodes, the late magnate of
South Africa, as follows: "I believe in Force Almighty, the ruler of
the universe, working scientifically through natural selection to
bring about the survival of the fittest and the elimination of the
unfit."