The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1884-10-08
PROF. WOODROW AND EVOLUTION.
From tie 81. L0uis Presbyttrian

our conclusions What the Church
needs and should demand, is n fuller.
deeper, more dispassionatc examination.
AS one, who has been Intimately ac-
quaintcd with DR.. Woodrow for the past
seventeen years, and was taught by him
in the seminary, | desire to make my
feeble contribution to the calculation Of
this subject. That DR.. Woodrow is n
dcvout Christian and diligcnt, humble
and earnest student Of the Bible, none
can deny who. know him. His rever-
encc for the Bible, as the pure word of
God, the childlike simplicity Of his faith
in all it's uttcrances, the native honesty
Of his mind, his ability and candor in
dealing with it's difficulties from n scicn-
tific point Of view, his deep conviction
Of the absolute truth Of every word of
the Mblc-thesc arc the impressions
which were made upon me while sat
ut his feet in the seminary, and these
impressions have only been dccpcncd by
all my subsequent knowledge Of him.
AS a man Of science, DR.. Woodrow's
reputation for unqucstioncd ability is
beyond dispute by all competent judges,
whether in this country or in Europe
This wonderful ability, however. has
been to too large an extent ovcrshadow-
ed hy his excessive modcSty. The pres
| cnt scatling and searching ordeal
through which his "Adlress OH Evolu-
ton is passing will afford at least this
qualification to his friends it will COM
pei him to show to the public something
Of those tranSccndcnt abilities which
have hitherto been exhibited mainly to
his students.
Sow when such understanding
abreast of the ablcSt Christian phlos-
ophers Of his generation, endorsed, too,
to greater OF less extent in his views
by such men as ASA Gray, Prof Dana,
DR.. Joseph LcContc and Prof. Drum
mond. Of GlaSgow-when such a man
gives the result of his studies on cvolu-
tion and its relation to the Bible. is it not
worthy at least of respectful and dis
passionate hearing? When such an
eminent Christian and scientific expert t
as DR.. Joseph LcConte says: II adopt
every word Of DR.. Woodrows address
MS my own belief it would seem that
others should not hastily jump to the
conclusion-Dr. Woodrow has avowcd
his belief in crolHti0n, therefore he is
both L hereto and behind the times rs Il
scientist. Let me add just here in JUS
ticc to DR.. Woodrow that he knows
nothing Of my purpose TO write this arti-
Gle; 1T is the spontaneous prompting Of
Il grateful heart, feeling that owe him
for his instructions in the seminary n
debt which | can never repay.
In reference to the address it ShoulI
be remembered that it clearly discrimi-
mates between that doctrine of evolution
which is athciStic and that which is
thciStic (prefcrably neither athciStic nor
thcistic), rejecting the former and adopt
ing the latter as exhibiting COTS pian
J creation.
Rather what DR.. Woodrow explicitly
maintains is tat evolution, as defined
by him-which seems to him 'the only
one which can bc given within the limits
of natural science, necessarily excludes
the possibility Of the questions whether
the doctrine is thciStic or athciStic,
whether it is religious or irrcligiOus.
moral or immornl.' With him it is non.
athcistic, as the logical contradictory of
atheistic. 1t should be judged, there
fore. from this latter point Of view.
This Of itself is, valuable contradiction;
it enables the stndcnt to feel that to ac-
ccpt the doctrine Of the address does
not neccssitate u remuneration Of his be-
lief in God as the Creator and Prescrver
Of all things.
1t is further. worthy of notice that
this doctrine Of evolution is not contra.
dictory Of the Bible. DR.. Woodrow's
position is: Whatsoever contradicts the
A''"'S ~ hSSS"SihJ "'Sc: We uctt no
farther proof Of the falsity of any state
ment than that it is contradictcd by tho
Bible. But then. before we apply this
summary process to any question in dis
pute, we should be very sure that the
Bible does contradict it. Believing that
the Bible does not contradict the theory
of evolution. as held by him, he main.
taihs that it may be true; but whether
true on false, it does not affect in the
least his faith in "thc absolute incrran.
cy" of tho inspired record. The Bible
says "thc Lord God formed man Of the
dust of the ground" The Bible there
fore answers two questions /. Who
formed man God" 2. OF what ma
tcrial did G.d form man ? sOf the dust
Of the ground" If now VIC choose to
ask third question: OF what sort of
ri, ,yt n