V A. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION WHAT ABOUT EVOLUTION? It is sometimes said that Christianity has suffered much from not accepting the modern scientific doctrine of evolution. Do those who speak in this way really know what evolution means? Could they define it? Could they tell in what way it has been modified since the time of Darwin? There is no little ignorance on the subject, and it is worth while to consider what is to be understood by the term. A statement recently reported as made by an American clergyman represents the views of many on evolution: "There is no escape for intelligent people today from the acceptance of the law of evolution. This law may be stated briefly to be that life on this planet, including man, has developed from the lower to higher types. Thus, man has gradually developed from some lower form of animal life. And man in his highest estate has through infinite years developed from man in his savage state." It is clear from such an utterance that this minister has accepted the idea of evolution without giving it that careful attention which is necessary in the case of so vital and important a question. It is an illustration of how easy it is to accept a position which happens to be current, without subjecting it to proper examination. By W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., Wycliffe College, Toronto. Copy. right (1918), The Bible Institute Colportage Association, Chicago, Illinois. Reprinted by permission. Evolution may mean little or a great deal. The term is often misused. Sometimes it is employed quite generally to indicate a change brought about by some force, whether internal or external. But the strictly scientific meaning is, a change wrought by internal force without external aid or volition. It would be well if this strictly correct meaning could always be understood by the use of the term. The ordinary reader need have no difficulty in understanding that it is usual to divide the subject into suborganic, organic, and super-organic. The first refers to the development of matter without life, and is applied to the formation of the solar system from some cruder conditions of matter. Organic evolution is intended to describe a process of derivation or development of vegetable and animal life. Super-organic evolution refers to the same principle in metaphysical and non-material spheres. ORGANIC EVOLUTION But let us now think simply of organic evolution. Even here, there is scarcely anything that needs more careful definition because of the wide divergence of opinion as to the use of the term. It is sometimes applied to the ordinary growth of a vegetable from a seed, or of a chicken from an egg. It is also used to denote a gradual development, made without any outside interference, but by means of residential forces, of some primordial germ into all the varied forms of life now existent. Further, it is sometimes thought of as causal, that is, as the cause of all life; and sometimes as modal, that is, as the method by which a personal Creator has brought about the varied forms of life. The latter is, of course, the only possible way of using the term in a Theistic and Christian sense. But now comes the question as to evolution's real meaning as a method of the Creator's work. According to Huxley, life originated in a low form of matter, which passed into higher forms by a constant succession of transmutations of species, until at length mankind was reached. On this hypothesis it is necessary to ask whether all life sprang from one cell, or from two, one for vegetable and one for animal? And if two, why not more? This question has to be settled by evidence. The earliest vegetable form known is that of the algæ or seaweeds, and yet during vast ages that species has remained essentially unchanged and abounds today in the same form. In commenting on this fact, Albert L. Gridley, in the chapter on modal evolution in his book, Genesis the Foundation for Science and Religion, keenly asks: "If some algæ parents begat algæ offspring, so to speak, and have continued to do so throughout the ages, is it probable that other algæ parents begat offspring of some other species and these begat other species still, and so the thousands of fossil and living plants have been produced?" TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES But the curious thing is that, in spite of all the scientific research and discussion, there is no proof whatever of anything like a change or transmutation of species. Species today are practically what they have been for ages; there is no trace of one ever crossing over to another. Dr. Etheridge, the superintendent of the Department of Natural History in the British Museum, has declared; "In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. They adopt a theory and then strain their facts to support it." To the same effect are the words of De Cyon, the Russian scientist, in his book God and Science, who says: "Evolution is pure assumption." It is to be noted, also, that while regular, orderly progress is necessary to any theory of evolution, it is no evi |