New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-29
TIE BIBLE AND ECOLUUON.
A REPLY TO PROF. TAYLHR IKWls-h BhlIBf IN
EVOLUTION not INCONSISTENT WITH CHRIS
TIANITY-TuE ORIGIN or MAN.

EVOLUTION not INCONSISTENT WITH CHRIS
TANIrY-TuE ORIGIN or MAN.
TO the Edtt0r OF The tribune.
SIR: Permit ne to thank Prof Taylcr Lewis
for MS full and courteous my questions respect
ing the opposition between Evolution and scripture ana
his candid acceptance Of NY ant ase IN the sense
IN which intended it. Perhaps lie aud VIII allow
me n brief reply lie SAYS he "cau cordially agree"
with me in my statement of what understand 70 he the
true view of evolution hut he does not think that II
1.-The Iarwinian evolution" cannot see why not nor why
a full acceptance of The latter theory ncousist NJ with
a full belief In "a real. living personal Cod, guiding ana
directing all things We see, Gay by day, the world NOV
lng on under natural laws apparently changcess and
MEMORABLE and yet believe in Gods overriding provi
dence As iruf LOWS well suggests, II man and
guide natural laws, and modify their results without
"snasling" any OF thom, what IL moro reasonable than
to suppose that Cod who cstb shed lhoi, an do, ana
does as much and morci ThcarmcDi Is then that Ood
now works through what call natural laws So lie has
done in past ages Tl not 10 that lie could not
II He chose create change universe by bis nat IN
moment bit simply that APP artnt'y lie choose other
wise | think that Prof. IeWs's own argument snow.
clearly that Inconsistency mentioned above does not
necessarily exist.
il 10 be- remembered moreover, that physical science
deals with the OF tne material universe ana ihef
relations 10 each other. wlile there t. higher realm
which we call the spiritual But pys cal science doe"
no, detect the spiritual that les beyond It's reach 1t
can never "by searching fud on God" IL gives NJ fcs
and suggestions from which ma inior u we WILL the
existence and providence OF Cod But on TIE Oi"l mana
We may refuse 90 draw the inf renee. We may dslv""
all knowledge Of the un-ecu and spiritual, aud u"ciate
that we know nothing which 10 Demonstrated 10 oui
senses or to logical understanding. THEREFOR u
seems that rwnisIn or the doctrine Of evolution
my DE held consistently by athe 81 or bv Christian
V think that the aihrlst:c IA partial in that u
leaves out the supernatural ana spiritual
OF the existence of which have evidence OF different
kind but a. real A. that Of the existence OF the material
For myself fecl-iO modify Wc-wOrn qu0tail'n-thai
the underwent evoutionsi IL mad II it be admitted
that there IL no Inconsistency tie stability %:
natural law and Gods overriding proviJcnce-auc !
think Prof Lewis admits -then oI> point Of " polar
opposition between Darwnisn and Biblical truth dis
appears.
But the most serious point with Prof Lewis seems 10
be IN reference the origin OF the human race Here.
lie says be end Of concession TO science or any
thing else The idea Of the special creation Of man 10y
Divine hat IL tie idea s'GntS rel cden'is iidnitd
The rejection Of If makes havoc OF the whole E.hle IL
tins wi-o position to take II not tho origin OF ia" hn
man race fair subject foy scientific iuFcstig"n Has
not God given in the and in the living things
upon the earth and in Ia" constitution and history Of
man himself another rcycaton And shall refuse 10
examine Il lrst it should ultimately obliSo TO modify
our reading II Tie written Nosdi Is not this rcpefi
ton OF the old mistake that che Church has been making
from the time Of Calico down How shall 10
Science the study of Gods Truth in naure-Thus far
aud no further ~ II admit the principle Of evolution
at ALL where shall stopi Why draw tie line AT man
There IL nothing in nature that requires II. There is
nothing in the Scripture Of mans creation that
makes il necessary Moses says: And the Lord God
formed man dust the ground aud brcathed INTO
bis nostrs the breath of lie, and uian became vlns
soul" If he had the modern theory ~ evolution
and intended to frame statement which should
be In harmony with H. could he have done bcicri II
VIC reject evolution entirely and believe with ACassiZ
iu the unchangcdbrnes- Of species driven with
him believe four five separate creations -
notion which may not be at variance win scripture
but certainly h8r' 10 harinOn'Lc' with
them than the theory ot evolution But even ARasiI
admitted that II evolution all DE ell 10 the lower
forms life, similar evidence IL viii he proved as To
man Prof. Lewis HINTS at dOctrual difficulties ~ the
way of the application OF the evolution theory 10 man
think arrehcnd his 'tuipg though not the force ~
the objection Suppose understand the word Acan
Us collective name for primitive man. or consider Inn
~ a type uiIrsOnltiOn OF The human race th'hk
n can shown that this dOcs violence to the text OF
Scripture. what article OF Christian tiith or doctrine
will then be dstIibrdi Take thu word IN this ne IN
Prof Iewiss formula, " Adam-ty ~" CHI iSaniiy l.
not the paralieisn lac refers 10 the saDet cond
Wish that he hid not for lack Of space" dealt so briefly
with branch the rc Perhaps lie VIII xplatn
we hasten starring 81 each scientific theory,
o. cry out, " u this be true Christianity j. lsri let
us wait little Prove all things. and hold fast that
which good. II the doctrine be OF il will 10
naught. 1T be o. God. We cannot rec st 1t. T.
hen yOr6 Ian o5. 1915