WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN ON DARWINISM
By R. C. P.
Mr. Bryan is well known throughout the world as one of the ablest American lecturers and editors. In one of his public addresses, entitled "The Prince of Peace," he refuses to accept the theory of Darwin on the ascent of man, because "it does not solve the mystery of life or explain human progress." He further says: IS THE MONKEY IN FRONT OR BEHIND US?
"All I mean to say is that while you may trace your ancestry back to a monkey, if you find pleasure or pride in doing so, you shall not connect me with your family tree without more evidence than has yet been produced.
. . . I object to the theory for several reasons. First, it is a dangerous theory. If a man links himself in generations with the monkey, it then becomes an important question whether he is going toward him or coming from him—and I have seen them going in both directions. I do not know of any argument that can be used to prove that man is an improved monkey, that may not be used just as well to prove that the monkey is a degenerate man; and the latter theory is more plausible than the former. "It is true that man, in some physical characteristics, resembles the beast; but man has a mind as well as a body, and a soul as well as a mind. The mind is greater than the body, and the soul is greater than the mind; and I object to having man's pedigree traced on one third of him only—and that the lowest third. Fairbairn, in his 'Philosophy of Christianity,' lays down a sound proposition when he says that it is not sufficient to explain man as an animal; that it is necessary to explain man in history—and the Darwinian theory does not do this. The ape, according to this theory, is older than man; and yet the ape is still an ape, while man is the author of the marvelous civilization which we see about us. "One does not escape from mystery, however, by accepting this theory; for it does not explain the origin of life. When the follower of Darwin has traced the germ of life back to the lowest form in which it appears—and to follow him one must exercise more faith than religion calls for—he finds that scientists differ. Those who reject the idea of creation are divided into two schools, some believing that the first germ of life came from another planet, and others holding that it was the result of spontaneous generation. Each school answers the arguments advanced by the other; and as they can not agree with each other, I am not compelled to agree with either." If compelled to accept one of these theories, Mr. Bryan says he would prefer the first, "for if we can chase the germ of life off this planet and get it out into space, we can guess the rest of the way, and no one can contradict us; but if we accept the doctrine of spontaneous generation, we can not explain why spontaneous generation ceased to act after the first germ was created." Mr. Bryan continues: "Go back as far as we may, we can not escape from the creative act; and it is just as easy for me to believe that God created man as he is, as to believe that, millions of years ago, He created a germ of life, and endowed it with power to develop into all that we see to-day. I object to the Darwinian theory, until more conclusive proof is produced, because I fear we shall lose the consciousness of God's presence in our daily life, if we must accept the theory that through all the ages no spiritual force has touched the life of man or shaped the destiny of nations. DEVELOPING BY LAW OF HATE
"But there is another objection. The Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate—the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak. If this is the law of our development, then, if there is any logic that can bind the human mind, we shall turn backward toward the beast in proportion as we substitute the law of love. I prefer to believe that love rather than hatred is the law of development. How can hatred be the law of development, when nations have advanced in proportion as they have departed from that law and adopted the law of love?" This is a sane and consistent view of Darwinism. Shall we reject the Bible for such uncertainties as evolutionary theories offer? How many times will the "fundamental belief of science" be "completely overset," how many "complete departures from former theories" will there be, how often will "all doctrines be upset" and "swept aside," before men will know what to believe? The word of God has predicted all this pretended wisdom, and revealed its weakness, as follows: "The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. . . . For shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?" Isa. 29: 14-16. One who receives the evolutionary theories of to-day must reject God as the Creator, and to reject the creatorship of God is to reject the gospel. But the silent tablets, lying deeply buried, arose at the time of the greatest skepticism, to bear their testimony in confirmation of the Bible record of creation and the Flood. Science stood abashed, and again corrected its reckoning. True science ever confirms the Bible record of creation.