The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1874-05-08
The Theory OF Evolution Not In Con-
htct with the Interests Of Chris

The last lecture In the course OF
christian Truth and Modern Opinion
was delivered in Christ's Church. Nav
York, The subject was "EyolutIon ant
personal Creatotp Doctor Smith corn
menced by sayinsthat while hc was va,
lar from being an advocate for the theorI
Of EVolutionI ttwas no part OF his IurposI
70 attempt It's relutation. He expressed
the opinion, judging from former con.
alcts between religious and scientlfl,
theories, and the. evident tendency q
scientific Investigate lon and discovery. TIA
notmany yeara would pass away beloF,
some theory 81 Evolution would DO gen.
orally accepted by educated men as M
most rational explanation Of the phenom.
ena OF the universe.
DISTURBED STATE OF MANY MINDS
In tho meantime tho minds OF many
petsons are seriously disturbed by The
supposed antagonism Of any such theory
10 the IDEA Of o personal God, and there
lore TO tho whole Idea OF natural and re-
vealed religion. II Is very important,
therefore, that In anticipation Of the gen
eral acceptance OF some such theory. II
should be shown that It not only does not
initiate against tho idea of a personal
God, but that i! is hostile TO no interest Of
Christianity.
ln carrying out this purpose, DR..
Smith said that he should seek, as a
starting point, some ground which would
be held In common by theists who are
without prejudice IN regard to scientific
investigation, and evolutlonists who arc
ready to consider any evidence as TO the
lnhntte Being behind and beyond tho
phenomena o. Nature. In seeking such
common ground Doctor Smith referred TO
that period In tho history of Nature when
space was filled with homogeneous mass
which the Greeks called hy6. Whether
this was what We usually call matter or
tmmeaSura6ly extended force-centers.
made no difference in the argument, Be.
You'd this lyle, and preceding Il in the
order OF thought, is absolute being. The
theist, OF course, holds this. MI. Herbert
Spencer. the great leader Of the evolution.
ISIS, holds 1t also. We must postulate ab.
soIuIe being, he says, as the condition OF
any conclusions as to phenomena.
WHAT Is MEANT DY TIE uNKNowADLE,
The cvolutlonists hold, however, that
every thing In regard 10 absolute being IL
unknowable. II 1t is unknowable, then
be can no moro deny than affirm any
thing in regard to 1t. DR.. Smith then
SAD that since the evolutiOnist, on his
o%n principles, could not DENY it, we
should suppose, for the present, reserylnr
Tue evidence Tor It until later in the dis
cusslon, that absolute being Is personal
being, with reason, affection and will.
Dr. smith then said that, having made
hla supposiIion, which 20 eVolutionist
could deny, we were prepared to witness
tue process OF evolution, so far as such
process exists in Nature, remembering all
the limo that the whole process and every
step IN theprOcess arc simply expressions,
according 10 our superstition, OF the will
aud agency Of tho Absolute Being. We
find certain laws in Nature (Which is only
another name for methods oil divine
agency by which this process Of evolu-
ton Is carried on. Such are the laws Of
the persistence Of force, the continuity OIL
motion, and the indestructibiIity Of mat
ter The divine power, working accord.
lng 70 these laws, builds up the system Of
lie Universe. Dr.. Smith showed how,
on the theory of evolution, the apparent
chasm between inorganic and organic ma.
lure might BIO passed over without distur-
bance or any difference or peculiar divine
agency. In other words, the process
might be continuous without initiating
OF all against the idea Of tho constant
agency Of personal God. The evidence
alleged by ieyolutionists that this
Is the case, and that the process
comes finally to include men was
considered. The objections also TO- this
evidence were reviewed. In . this
connection DR.. Smith paid d high tribute
to the scientific labors and the theistic
principles and influence Of Prof. Agassiz,
expressing the conviction, at the same
time, that ProiI Agassiz's scientific opin-
ion as to the origin Of species represent-
ing q falling cause. The objection aris-
Ing from the absence Of uniting links in
the Iossililerous remains Of species was
considered, and q reiutation claimed 10 be
madeby the evolhtionists was given in
detail. This answer to the objection Is
found In the fact, of the ,imperlectlon OF
the geological record, and the almost en-
tire destruction OF organic remains. The
evolutionist claims that II 1t was not for
the law by which less favored varieties Of
animal lie disappeared, the, breaches bet.
ween would not exist. Specific dishnc-
tions would be impossible. In this con-
nection DR.. Smith considered tho basis Of
specific classification, giving a review Of
the old controversy batween nominalism
and realism on this subject. He also
pointed out how certain laws, such as
those Of the transmission Of Hike
ness 10 an original type; the ten.
dency to- variation; the increase Of
animal life IN geometrical ratio,
and tho consequent struggle for existence
would according to the theory Of evolu.
ton give rise to tho phenomena oil sbe-
ci6c destruction. At this point Dr.,
Smith claimed Thai, II Il should finally
BE- established that this progrcssin nature
IS continuous until 1t reaches and In.
cludes man, 1t would no mere initiate
against the idea Of o personal Creator
than the fact that the process Of evolu-
ton existed al all. 1t must DO remem-
oered, however, that tho argument pro-
ceeds all tho time upon the superstition Of
an incessant and ubiquitous exercise oil
the will and tho agency Of q personal
God, In every atom Of matter or every
force centre, and thus underlying andpef.
vadlug me whole phenomena 81 the lnis
verse. AS the theory Of evolution touches
only Phenomena and the laws ioi their
succession, i excludes no hypothesis as
10 what lies back Of phenomena, and the
existence OF . persona! God must be as:
sailed, II assatled at all, upon other and
Metaphysical grounds. Dr.. Smith 70.
marked that although the subject as.
merely the felstion between The 'T ,6eoEv
OF evolution and the doctrine Of q person.
AL NeaNknH s,0kSaR61atah 1s ~ wa, kln A.