THE EVOLUTION THEORY NOT A MODERN DOCTRINE
By R. C. P.
The "Primeval Egg" Borrowed by Democritus from the Brahman Priests—The Evolution Theory Would Destroy the Need of a Creator—If Evolution Is Right Why the Gospel?
WHILE the theory of evolution comes before the world as the result of modern scientific research, it is in fact no new discovery, but an old heathen superstition. It originated with Democritus, among the Greeks, about four hundred years before Christ. FOUNDATIONS FOR NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS
The world had almost wholly drifted into idolatry. Democritus, becoming offended with the vulgarity attributed to these heathen deities, set himself to the task of inventing a plan of developing and operating the world without them. Drawing his theory from the theory held by the Brahmans of India, that the world developed itself from a primeval egg, he retouched this theory, which was too bald to be considered by the Greeks with any favor, and developed what was virtually the nebular hypothesis. He presented the view that all matter consisted of very small atoms, which were dancing about through space from eternity until they happened to come together. The sea mud development theory was originally held by the ancient Phenicians, who taught that all life was from the sea. They reasoned that as wet mud produces all kinds of herbs, it must have produced originally all kinds of animals. Upon this hypothesis they worshiped it as a god, and called it "mot" or "mud." Anaximander and Eucretius still further developed the theory. TRANSUBSTANTIATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE TRANSMUTATION OF SCIENCE
Mr. Tyndall says that the spread of Christianity hindered the spread of the doctrine, until the Saracens overspread the East, when some of them seemed to favor it. But with the reverses that weakened the power of the false prophet in the East, this anti-christian science went down. It was again encouraged by finding its counterpart appearing in the Church of Rome under the garb of the Christian religion about the tenth century, in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine of the sacrament into the real body and blood of divinity. It was the old doctrine of transmutation of species in a more complete form than that in which it had appeared under its heathen patrons. Science ignores miracles; yet a finer spun field of logic would be required than literature has yet produced, to distinguish between the miracle of transubstantiation of the Romish church and Mr. Tyndall's endowment of matter with life and thought without a Creator. SOME VARIATIONS OF THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Lamarck presented another theory. He held that all plants—even fungi—and animals were endowed with intelligence, and improved themselves by the exercise of that intelligence. So the greyhound grew slim by running, the giraffe's neck grew long by reaching for high branches, and the duck acquired web-feet by swimming. Others agreed with this theory, but they attributed the evolution of difference to external conditions. "The Negro became black by exposure to the tropical sun, the arctic hare received its coat of thick white fur from the cold climate, and the buffalo and camel their humps of fat from the sterility of their pastures at certain seasons and the consequent need of reserved store of fat for food for the rest of the body." These were both variations of the evolutionary theory; but Darwin's doctrine of natural selection refused Lamarck's conscious attempt of either plant or animal for improvement, and it equally denied any external improvement by the power of nature, except by killing off poor specimens. Neither Huxley, Parsons, Mivart, nor Wallace accepted the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin. Others presented still other views. Not one of them was based upon a real scientific foundation. The promise in every case was assumed instead of being a proved fact. WANDERING BACK TO THE HEATHEN DIVINITIES
So after twenty-two centuries of wandering in a labyrinth of skeptical reasoning to get rid of God in creation, skeptics have circled back to the pure and simple heathenism of Democritus, who started out to develop the universe apart from heathen divinities. The marvel is that any eminent thinkers can be found to support such theories as scientific. It is no wonder astronomers have generally declared that the theory is in opposition to the facts of physical astronomy; and naturalists, that it is directly opposed to the facts of natural history. Evolution not only discredits the Bible account of creation, but laying this as its major premise, it logically denies the fall of man and the need of the atonement. Bishop Williams, of the Episcopal diocese of Michigan, declared that the book of Genesis contains a statement of "impossible geology, astronomy, and ethnology." Prof. C. R. Barnes, of the University of Chicago, said: "Reconciling Biblical accounts of natural events with scientific ones is a waste of time. To identify the days of creation with geological epochs is absurd." This represents the trend of sentiment of schoolmen who are misled by the false teaching of this pretended science. The issue is squarely on. If the Bible record of creation is true, the theory of evolution is false. Comte, speaking of the statement in the nineteenth psalm, "The heavens declare the glory of God," says, "The heavens declare no other glory than that of Hipparchus, of Kepler, of Newton, and of all those who have aided in establishing these laws." ("Illustrations of Universal Progress," page 241.) IT WOULD DESTROY THE CREATOR
The whole tendency of the evolutionary theory is to degrade the Creator, that man may be exalted to the seat of God. This is well known to every candid Bible student to be the work first begun in heaven by Satan, who became ever afterward an adversary of God and His work. Gen. 3:1-5. Is it not passing strange that human reason can become so dwarfed by beholding this false science as to distinguish no difference between a creator and an observer? These men named above observed the heavenly bodies until they were able to proclaim their laws; but their observations led them to exclaim, "We are thinking Thy thoughts after Thee, O God." Man has also been called a creator, because by the cultivation and irrigation of barren lands, they have been made to produce differently from before. Profound logic! God appointed man as tiller of the soil. He did not appoint him creator. There is a marked difference between a creator and a cultivator of things already created. NOT RESPONSIBLE TO THE CREATOR, AND THE FALL OF MAN DENIED
As previously remarked, the mischief of this theory does not end with creation. If the evolutionary theory of creation without a Creator is accepted, then God is not man's Creator, and man is therefore not responsible to God; and if man evolved, there was no fall of man; and if there was no fall of man, there is no sin; and if there is no sin, there is no need of a Saviour through whom atonement may be made, and the whole Bible is swept away, and man is left without God and without hope in the world. Mr. R. Blatchford, in an article in the Clarion (England), says: "If the theory of evolution is true, the doctrine of the atonement is not true. First, as to the fall; if there was no fall, there was no reason for an atonement. How can we square the fall with evolution? When did man fall? Was it before he ceased to be a monkey or after? There never was any fall—never could be any fall—according to the evolutionists. Evolution assumes a long, slow rise. No, if the theory of evolution be true, there was nothing to atone for, and nobody to atone. Man has never sinned against God. In fact, the whole fabric of the Christian faith is a mass of error. There was no fall, there was no atonement. There was no Adam, and no Eve, and no devil, and no hell." THE ISSUE IS PLAIN: IS THE CHRISTIAN FAITH TO BE DESTROYED?
This is the logical result of the teachings of all evolutionary theories. Evolution makes this stupendous demand for the reconstruction of the Christian faith, without presenting one scientific fact to entitle it to consideration as a demonstrated science. It demands not merely the reconstruction of the Christian faith, but42its annihilation. In the days of Elijah the issue was between the prophets of Baal and the prophet of God over the same question. "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him." 1 Kings 18:21. The lines of demarcation were clearly drawn in that conflict. Compromise was impossible. So now, if evolution be god, the creator and redeemer, follow it; but if the Lord be God, Creator, and Redeemer of a fallen race, "worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." Rev. 14:7.