Objections to the Theory of Evolution

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 13, 1906

Objections to the Theory of Evolution

Now and then we find an emphatic protest against the theory of evolution in general, and Darwin’s doctrine of the origin of species in particular. A recent letter to the New York Sun is a case in point. The writer said:—

Scholars and scientists of ability at least equal to that of your correspondent, Mr. Dobson, totally disagree with him and his master, Darwin, in some of their conclusions. For instance, the great Italian writer, Fogazzaro, says: “We must admit that science does not possess a single reliable direct proof of the origin of man from an inferior species.” Virchow at a late scientific congress in Moscow said that the theory of the origin of man from an inferior species “had been beaten on its whole line of battle.” Of Darwin’s theory Moleschott said: “Men were more generous to Darwin than the facts.” So think also the distinguished scientists Tuccimei, Grassi, and others quoted by Boni (“Si Può essere Evoluzionista.” Siena, 1900). Yet Mr. Dobson, somewhat in the tone and manner of a general council of the church or of a pope defining ex cathedra, promulgates this dogma “that it may be then stated as axiomatic that all phenomena, inorganic and organic, are but the finite representations of the infinite and eternal substance, meaning thereby both force and matter which are indivisible.”

But where did the substance come from? Did it make itself? If not, who made it? From what did it evolve? Where is the cause of its evolution, inside or outside? Where did the first atom or cell come from? How do you know that the cause of evolution, if there has been evolution, is solely in the being that is evolved? If Mr. Dobson is unwilling to accept the Christian dogma of creation, and wishes to substitute for it a plausible hypothesis, why not accept the poetic theory of Dante that life and the germs of life came down from the stars? (Paradiso, Canto II.) The poet, unlike some of the scientists, does not try to prove his theory by bad logic. His theory, unlike Mr. Dobson’s, can never be refuted, for science can never know the nature and conditions of all the stars.

Now, which is harder to believe, the first article of the Christian Creed, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,” or the evolution theory, as expounded by Mr. Dobson or by Mr. Haeckel, whose “riddle” has been riddled to pieces by recent German scientists? Man is conscious that he is a person; and hence the personality of a Supreme Being appeals to his good sense. Man knows that he could not and did not make himself; and hence the idea of a Creator appeals to his good sense, as the idea of a watchmaker appeals to it when he looks at his watch.

The unproved hypotheses of scientists constitute a very poor basis for rejecting the plain statements of the Holy Scriptures. The facts concerning creation are stated in simple language in the Bible, and form the foundation for the gospel of re-creation, but what has not been revealed can never be discovered by scientific research. “Just how God accomplished the work of creation he has never revealed to men; human science can not search out the secrets of the Most High. His creative power is as incomprehensible as his existence.” It is safer to accept the Word of God than to place confidence in the theory of evolution.