"Evolution" and Evolution.
By A. T. Jones
Now for proofs that the soul is the main, if not the only, point of distinction between these two forms of evolution. It appears dimly in our first-quoted statement of Darwinism; thus:— "According to him, even mind, heart, conscience, are just as much the product of physical evolution as is the physical structure itself." And again in the foregoing list of leading evolutionists the qualifying word "physical" is applied thus:— "Man's physical structure they regard as no real exception to the law." "And where a man believes in evolution it goes without saying that the law holds good as to man's physical structure." Plainly implying that his mental structure is held as an exception. But Darwin has shown conclusively, not by speculation, but by genuine science, that the difference in the mental power of man and that of the lower animals consists not in kind but in degree. And surely none of these theistic evolutionists, ultra as he might be, would deny at least some mental structure to the lower animals. Consequently, when they differ from Darwinism, it can only be on that one point of the immortality of the soul. Happily, however, we are not left to this conclusion drawn from qualified statements, necessary though it may be, but we have the unqualified statement itself by one of the highest authorities on evolution. Mr. Sully, before quoted, says:— "At first sight it might appear that the doctrine [of evolution] as applied to the subjective world, by removing the broad distinction between the human and the animal mind, would discourage the hope of a future life for man's soul." Exactly; and this is consistent with evolution throughout, and consequently when these "orthodox," "evangelical" gentlemen, holding fast to that intensely "orthodox" and "evangelical" doctrine, the immortality of the soul, adopt evolution, they are compelled to adopt such a form of it as will admit this doctrine, even though it involve them in the glaring inconsistency of antagonizing "creative activity," and then being obliged to antagonize their antagonism to save their theory. But of what worth is all this "contrivance to save appearances" if the soul be not immortal? It is "nothing worth." And as the soul is absolutely not immortal, but in this, "man hath no pre-eminence above a beast" (Eccl. 3:19), this consideration removes the whole and sole ground of distinction between the two forms of evolution; and then this would-be theistic evolution appears just where consistency and the logic of pure evolution demand that it should appear,—that is, in the bald reality of atheistic evolution,—and brings out the plain truth plainly that there is no such thing as theistic evolution. But when this so-called theistic evolution, resting only upon a fallacy the exposure of which so surely lands it in atheistic evolution, is so wide-spread, so almost all-pervading in the orthodox and evangelical churches, schools, and colleges, are we not brought in another form to the contemplation of the text, "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Not alone, Shall he find faith in his second coming? but, Shall he find faith at all? In studying these evil tendencies of the times, we are persuaded that "when the Son of man cometh," he will not find faith in his word, he will not find faith in himself, he will not find faith in God the Lord, the Creator of all. And we are also persuaded that we are again coming fast upon the time in the world's history, when "in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom" will know "not God" (1 Cor. 1:21); and when again, as of old, it shall please God "by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." And in view of it all, we feel as never before, how holily, how unblamably, how sacredly, we whom it may please God to call to do the preaching, should conduct this holy work—how humbly, meekly, and again, as "of old, not with excellency of speech or of wisdom,—not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. May God help us all, in these dark and trying times, and when they become still more fearfully dark and trying. Now just a few words before closing, upon the foundation of evolution. In a former article in a quotation of the words of a, then, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, saying that he "should regard a teacher of science who denied the truth of evolution as being as incompetent as one who doubted the Copernican theory." Does this president mean to assert that the theory of evolution is as well established as is the Copernican theory? If so, will he or any other evolutionist please give three laws in proof of it that will correspond to Kepler's Three Laws? Or will he give us one law that will correspond to any one of Kepler's Three, and which will be as susceptible of demonstration as are Kepler's? Nay, verily. It is with this as with geology,—simply and only "perhaps," "no doubt," "probably," and "must have been," and these repeated over and over again, and then all of them capped with an "assumption." Professor Clifford says:— "Of the beginning of the universe, we know nothing at all." "The fact is, that at the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis [spontaneous generation] does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which the existence of life on this globe is recorded." Yet he says that this "fact does not in the slightest degree interfere with the conclusion from other considerations, that at some time or other, abiogenesis must have taken place." What kind of science is that wherein facts do not in the slightest degree interfere with a hypothesis? And why is it that they do not? Oh! because:— "If the hypothesis [supposition] of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter."—Encyclopedia Britannica, Biology. To be sure. And so the Creator, revelation, reason, and facts, even as acknowledged by themselves as facts, must all stand aside, so that a supposition may have free course to run and be glorified. With a little more of this kind of "science" we should, "doubtless," be almost tempted, "perhaps," to cry out for "about the space of two hours." Great is the science of the evolutionists! Mr. Sully says, after speaking of the "gaps" in their knowledge, and the limits set to the explanation, of evolution:— "The question arises whether these apparently permanent gaps in our scientific knowledge can be filled up by extra-scientific speculations." That is, these gaps are to be filled not only by "speculations," but they are not to be even scientific, but "extra [above, outside of] scientific speculations."—Enc. Brit., Evolution. Now we come to Darwin himself, who Mr. Sully says is entitled to "the first notice as the one to whom belongs the honor of working out this theory of evolution upon a substantial basis of fact;" and of whose work Professor Huxley says:— "The Origin of Species" appeared in 1859, and it is within the knowledge of all whose memories go back to that time, that henceforward the doctrine of evolution has assumed a position and acquired an importance which it never before possessed." Owing to the important place which he holds in this doctrine, we hope we may be pardoned for giving him quite an extended notice; but it will need to be in nothing but his own words; for, as will be seen, the words themselves are all-sufficient to show the "substantial" (?), "scientific" (?), or "extra" scientific basis of evolution. We quote from Darwin's "Descent of Man," Appleton's Edition, 1871. (Italics ours.) Page 23. "No doubt he [man] inherits the power [of smell] in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition from some early progenitor to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used. We can thus perhaps understand how it is as Mr. Maudsley has truly remarked, that the sense of smell in man is singularly effective in recalling vividly the ideas and images of forgotten scenes and places." Page 81. "It is probable that the early ape-like progenitors of man were likewise social. Although man, as he now exists, has few special instincts, having lost any which his early progenitors may have possessed, this is no reason why he should not have retained from an extremely remote period some degree of instinctive love and sympathy for his fellows." Page 103. "In order that an ape-like creature should have been transformed into man, it is necessary that this early form, as well as many successive links, should all have varied in mind and body. It is impossible to obtain direct evidence on this head; but if it can be shown that man now varies, . . . there can be little doubt that the preceding intermediate links varied in a like manner." Page 144. "Nevertheless it may be well to own that no explanation, as far as I am aware, has ever been given of the loss of the tail by certain apes and man." Page 150. "In regard to bodily size or strength, we do not know whether man is descended from some comparatively small species like the chimpanzee, or from one as powerful as the gorilla." Page 151. "The early progenitors of man were no doubt inferior in intellect, and probably in social disposition, to the lowest existing savages." Page 154. "It is therefore highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been gradually perfected through natural selection, and this conclusion is sufficient for our purpose. Undoubtedly it would have been very interesting to have traced the development of each separate faculty from the state in which it exists in the lower animals to that in which it exists in man; but neither my ability nor my knowledge permits the attempt." Page 189. "If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group, then, as man agrees with them, . . . we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man." Page 191. "But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitor of the whole simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey." Page 192. "At the period and place, whenever and wherever it may have been, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country. We are far from knowing how long ago it was when man first diverged from the Catarrhine stock, but this may have occurred at an epoch as remote as the Eocene period." Page 195. "In attempting to trace the genealogy of the mammalia, and therefore of man, lower in the series, we become involved in greater and greater obscurity." Page 198. "The early progenitors of man were no doubt once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were pointed,389and capable of movement, and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles. . . . At a still earlier period the progenitors must have been aquatic in their habits; for morphology plainly tells us that our lungs consist of a modified swim-bladder, which once served for a float. The clefts on the neck in the embryo of man show where the branchiæ once existed. These early predecessors of man . . . must have been as lowly organized as a lancelet or amphioxus, or still more lowly organized." Page 205. "The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet." Yes, of course, to be born of an ape is vastly higher than to be fashioned by the perfect hand of the living God!!! And we are given to understand by the president of the American Association, etc., that such a string of great swelling words as this is from beginning to end, is no more to be doubted as science than is the Copernican theory, which is demonstrated by the exact science of mathematics! It is scarcely to be wondered at that such a theory is atheistic. And no warning of the Bible is more pertinent to the present times than that one in 1 Tim. 6:20, 21: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith." A. T. J.