The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-20
Cur Contributors.
Theistic Evolution.
BY REV T. A. HoYT, D. D., NASHVILLE,
TENN.
No Q

While We decline to adopt the newest
fashion of science, called Evolution"
because of its novelty and because of its
grossness-it is curious to notice the
transformation it undergoes in the hands
of Christian scientist. At the touch of
his magic wand, this paramount of ma
terialism is converted into the chaste
handmade of religion at least. so DR.. LIE
Conte proclaims her; and he wonders
greatly that all Christians do not receive
her at his hands, as fair and spotless
virgin
He denies that evolution carries with
it the implication of materialism; yet he
admits that the whole contest seems to
be carried on by both parties-scientists
and Christians-under this supposition
He says: For one who looks at the sub
Ject from a more rational point of view,
1T is impossible to contemplate this con-
dition of things without Impotence For
such an one it is hard to say which most
to wonder at and regretAthe sublime
assurance of the materialists in assuming
the identity of evolution and materialism
as self-evident proposition, and thus
claiming for the latter all the prestige of
scientific truth, or the incredible folly of
the friends of religion in accepting the
Identification.
Perhaps DIR. LIE Conte would have more
patience with'his fellow Christians, if he
would consider that most Christians are
not scientists, that they have heard very
little of evolution except from the ma
terialists, that most Christian scientists
reject the theory, and that he himself
reluctantly and recently embraced it.
Having, however, received evolution
as the true theory of the origin of organic
forms, he proceeds thus to explain and
illustrate it: "There are three, and only
three, possible theories of the origin of
species, as there are of the origin of the
a''aaO'duaI. In regard to the individual
the piously-trained child probably i'm
agnes that he was made directly, mucl
as the sculptor makes his clay model
The unframed child probably thinks he
was not made at all: he simply grew.
While most mature persons hold what
they believe to be more rational theory
viz, that we, each one of us. were
made by slow process of evolution. So
also in the matter of the origin of species
there are corresponding three, and only
three, possible theories. l. Some Chris
tians generally believe that the first in
d1O'd'tols of species were made much as
the piously-trained child imagines all in
dividuals are made. e., dSrectly. mir
oca>(oatsly or without natural process.
g. Others (materialists) imagine that
species were not made at all they grew
they were evolved 8. Still others (the-
lstlc evolutionists) believe that species.
like individuals, were made by process
OF evolution" Princeton Revie,v for
March, p. 158.
DIR. LIE Conte attempts to discriminate
between these three views in this man.
ner; The first asserts the maokioao. but
denies any natural process; the second
asserts the natural process, but denies
any making; the third asserts makino
by q natural process" He then boldly
affirms the last to be "the only truly
rational and philosophical view" He
claims that, 1T transcends and explains
the differences of the other two it COM
bine:s and reconciles them by showing
that each is true in what it asserts, and
wrong in what it denies"
Now, submit that the second and
third theories do not differ in themselves
but only in the hypothesis which under
lie them. They are identical in assert
ing the origin of species by evolution,
the difference being in the explanations
given Of the one process of evolution
one attributes it to material cause ex-
cluslvely; another includes also a spir-
ltual force. But the introduction Of a
deus er naachtna does not alter the the
DRY OF the process by which species are
formed. DR.. lie Conte is too good man
to exclude the Deity from any of His
works, but he has allowed himself to ac-
cept theory Of the universe, which. ac-