The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1886-06-10

eXlSt ln saQQ OF Clay ny SCIeuCe. Noh,
would not, on any account, subordinate
the word of God in this way to the teach
ings of science. We have conspicuous
example from the distinguished gentle
man who addressed US this morning, who
tells us it is science and we must accept
it. He says the catechism must be taken
in the sense of those who wrote it. 1t
teaches that in six days God created
Heaven and earth. What did those peo.
pie mean in the sixteenth century by the
Heavens and earth? They meant those
bodies circling around the earth. When
you accept that teaching in the sense OF
those who wrote it they meant by the
heavens those things that were floating
around US. 1 apprehend if you began to
examine your faith along with that of
the men of the sixteenth century you
would find many differences that never
occurred to you.
accept as you accepted, and now &C.
cept every word in this story of the crea-
ton contained in our standards. be-
lieye that He created man from the dust,
and woman from the rib taken from the
mans side. If 1 had full power to re.
write our standard I would. not wish to
change a sentence, word or letter from
that which already exists. must there
fore beg that you rid your minds of the
idea that I oppose the grounds taken by
DR.. Armstrong. The great difficulty is
that those entertaining ideas differing
from the majority report are misunder-
stood. This whole subject is new one.
1t was not in existence until compara-
lively late period. 1t must pass through
many periods before it reaches an easily
understood shape. You have been called
on to condemn the heresy of evolution,
without any qualification, and then in so
far as it relates to man. Let me read to
you from DR.. Armstrong. He sets out a
scheme of evolution thus The oak pass
es into the silk worm, the silk worm into
the frog, the frog into man. I never saw
any one who even came in a thousand
miles of believing such caricature. Is
it strange you should say, "Out of my
way" with such absurdity2 If this pro.
found student of half century errs thus
in representing evolution, what can
we expect from those who have had no
such opportunity for study? Again, DR..
Armstrong has announced in this book a
fact that is most important step in
geology of the last half century, if true.
And he asserts it upon his own observa-
ton. 1t is absolutely new to every geol.
ogist in the world. He says that on the
Western flank of the Alleghenies in .Vir'
giuia grow corals and sponges of the
same character as those upon the Florida
coast. There is much of doubt hanging
over new sciences, and we ought not to
be too hurried in the expressions of our
opinions. 1t is desirable that the church
should take more time before giving a
definite utterauce of its opinion upon
evolution, / do not want to reflect on
our predecessors, but wherever the church
has undertaken to decide any question
showing the relation of science and
religion, she has always been totally
wrong, invariably and dreadfully wrong
Fifteen hundred years ago the church
taught that the idea was not only ridicu.
lous, but contrary to the scriptures that
the earth was round. In the sixteenth
century the mobility of the earth and
fxedness of the starry system was con-
demned by the Christian church. The
law of gravitation was condemned as
taking away from God the power He
had of controlling His universe. Shall
we learn anything or not? Shall we
not learn that We must take little time
to decide these questions !?
This question is too new for us to speak
authoritatively upon. You are told that
it is dangerous. The established princi.
Piles of Interpretation have led to the
views here antagonized. The infallable
rule for interpreting Scripture is by the
Scripture itself. Things not clear in
themselves are elsewhere sufficiently ex.
planned to give proper understanding
The Scriptures principally teach what
man is to teach concerning God and what
duties God requires of man. Not only
do they principally teach this but they
teach nothing else. The Bible was moi
intendsd to teach the relation between
things, but between God and man. You
are requested to say that Adam and Eve
were created by an immediate act so al
to preserve the perfect race unity. Now
if you are going to explain you ought te
make things palmer. What do yor
mean by immediate? Do you NEAR
without media? There were the dust
the rib as media in this creation. i
cannot mean, therefore, without media
1t must mean, then, instantaneous. Wht
told you it was instantaneous Die
God? Does He tell you how long III
took to make man? He says He did it
He did with dust of the ground. Blu
does he say He did it instantaneously
There is no hint, however slight, that i
was so. Neither these standards nor tn
word of God affirm it. You are adding
to the word of God and requiring thos
under you to believe that which God ha
not spoken. That Adams body wa
directly fashioned by Almighty God ou
standards nor the Bible say anything o
the sort. The Bible is absolutely silen
as to mode and time. If you assert tina
you know, you err. You assert tina
which you will not find authority for il
the word of God. This majority repor
afirms that this pair were created withou
any natural animal parentage. How d
they know this They were created,