Darwin by D. T. Taylor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Aug 3, 1882

Darwin.

By D. T. Taylor

THE Independent, N. Y., June 15, 1882, says, “We recall the statement by an ecclesiastical dignitary of the Church of England that nobody of any account had ever questioned the Christian faith of this ‘holy man of God.’”

The following extracts from Darwin’s great work on man, show what he believed and taught. I append references to the Scriptures which Mr. Darwin’s views utterly ignore and deny, but which, if we accept them, refute Darwinism.

“We may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man.” Descent, Vol. 1, p. 189. (Gen. 1:20.)

“The Simiadæ then branched off into two great streams, the New World and Old World monkeys, and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded.” Vol. 1, p. 204. (Gen. 2:7.)

“There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals, in their mental faculties.”

“It is only natural prejudice and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demi-gods, which leads us to demur to this conclusion” (namely, “to admit the community of descent” of “man and all other vertebræ animals”). Vol. 1, pp. 31, 32. (Psa. 8:5.)

Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed as in man.” Vol. 1, pp. 68, 69. (2 Pet. 2:12.)

“By considering the embryological structure of man, the homologies which he presents with the lower animals, the rudiments which he retains,

and the reversions to which he is liable, we can partly recall to imagination the former condition of our early progenitors.” Ibid. (1 Cor. 15:45.)

“We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped furnished with a tail and pointed ears.” Vol. 2, p. 372. (Luke 3:38.)

Thus teaches Darwin and all radical evolutionists. Christian or skeptic? Man of God, as the English prelate calls him; or atheist? Which was Charles Darwin?

The Independent (committed to Darwin’s views) says, “The explanation he gave to the production of species (man?) was one that contradicted their notion of the interpretation of an obscure part of the Bible.” April 27, 1882.

Let Christians read again Gen. 1:27 and 2:7, and then mark these words “their notion,” and “obscure.” “Their notion” means the generally accepted Christian and orthodox faith respecting the Mosaic record. But,

Says the Christian Register, “The marvelous rapidity with which Mr. Darwin’s views have found acceptance among scientific men defies all comparison. It is without a parallel in the history of knowledge, wrote George Ripley.” And,

The Observer says, “Darwin’s theory is essentially materialistic, maintaining that there is an inherent energy in matter—at least in living matter—by which it tends to higher ends. It does not acknowledge the superintending care and power by which creatures are preserved and developed, but it is adapted to a system which excludes all idea of God. It was received with great éclat, and regarded by many scientists as being a demonstration and victory over the Bible account of creation.”

Says the Presbyterian Banner, “Philosophers who look with contempt upon the Mosaic account of man’s origin as supremely absurd and impracticable do not hesitate to accept implicitly and believe without any difficulty, the evolution theory,” of Darwin and Spencer.

Says the Interior, “His system has no place for God in any present energy, and the universe, if not without a creator, is certainly without any providential guide.”

The Illustrated Christian Weekly says that in Darwin’s theory, “God started the world; that was all. Practically, this is atheism. It leaves the soul without God.”

The Advance says, “Evolution, as held by Spencer, makes no account of him—God—further than to deny that he (or it) can be known.”

The Churchman calls Darwin’s system “A piece of hard, unyielding mechanism, which leaves no room for freedom, either divine or human; which puts everything at the mercy of its environments or surroundings, leaving no room for responsibility; which to that extent confounds mind and matter, good and evil—he and his followers have been chiefly instrumental in bringing about the spread of agnosticism.”

Says the Messenger, “The ethical turn he gives to his doctrine conflicts so palpably with the inspired account of creation that he has been regarded as a direct opponent of Divine Revelation.”

We conclude, the sacred record being true, that out of his own mouth Darwin is condemned, and his Christianity is indeed doubtful, while his theory is pernicious to faith in the Bible. And when we know that he read with avidity the Boston Index from its first issue till the last, and that but a short time previous to his death he donated that infidel and atheistic sheet the sum of $125 to aid in its support and circulation—we need add no more. But God will be Charles Darwin’s judge.—D. T. T., in Bible Banner.