The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-09-28
EVOLUTION AS INTERPRETED BY
ITS ADVOCATES: A REPLY.

IsT OF September Itn. Ihls writer
attempts to show by series of quo
tations from leading advocates" of
evolution that as system of philoso-
ply it is "rooted and grounded in
materialism, atheism, monism and
socialism"
l crave room for brief reply AS
a rule it is a waste of time to enter
into discussion with the expecta
ton of convincing an opponent.
This is not my object. Neither is it
to defend the theory of evolution.
AT present that stands in no need of
defence. AS Prof. Marsh, of Yale,
says it "has come to stay. Evolution
is no longer theory but demon
strated truth accepted by naturalists
through the world" The question
now is, How are we philosophically
to interpret the facts of evolutions
It must be granted that there is a
difference of opinion here ranging
from theism to atheism, but "W. T."
mistakes in thinking that evolution
logically leads to materialism and
atheism and also in thinking that it's
advocates are in general materialists
and atheists. | desire to reply; first,
because l do not wish it to appear
that a UNCONVENTIONAL organ of the
Universalist Church stands commit
ted unchallenged to such positions;
and second, because those of us in
this ministry who accept evolution do
not like to rest under the ban of
practical atheism. At least that is
true of myself.
The list of names selected by "W.
t." as leading advocates" of evolu
ton is, to say the least, singular, but
we waive all this to come to the real
issue.
First, in reply: "W. T." brings for
ward not single evolutionist who
confesses TO being an atheist. Ger
tain it is that most of them whose
names he uses are neither atheists
nor materialists, notably Spencer,
Draper, LeConte, W. S. Lilly. LIE
Conte's work on Evolution in its
Relation to Religious Thought"
shows him to be thorough theist as
we'll as one of our foremost scientists.
Spencer has denied the charge of
materialism over and over. Writing
to DR.. Lewis James in 1891 he said:
81 have to rebuff the charge of mate
rialism times too numerous to re-
member and l have now to give the
matter up. 1t is impossible to give
more emphatic denial or assign more
conclusive proof than l have repeat
eddy done"
Second. it is not difficult to show
that the majority of evolutionists of
note are not materialists. Says Prof.
Wright, of Oberlin, while acknowledge
ing that "the majority of naturalists
do now accept some form of evolu
ton" as he does himself, "Materialis-
tic evolution is more and more re-
garded as untenable. The argument
for theism is even stronger than
ever"
Among some of the leading evolu-
tionists who are not materialists let
me mention Spencer, Darwin, Wal
lace, Weismann, Huxley, LIE Conte,
John Fiske, Drummond, Mivart,
Romanes, Shaler, Marsh, Conn The
list can be indefinitely extended. No
set of materialistic evolutionists can
be found to match this list in scien-
tific standing.
Third, not one of the quotations
relied on commits evolution to athe-
ism. At least they are as easily recon
ciled to theism as to atheism, and, as
the authors of most of them are not
atheists, presumably their words are
not supposed to uphold atheism or
to be interpreted in that way. One
may readily grant that "Life is pure
ly a physical phenomenon" or that
"science traces the whole order of Wis
ible things" "out of the potencies of
matter" and the other quotations to
the same effect without in the least
abrogating the theistic argument. To
accept these ideas may change,
but need not destroy, the theistic
conception of the world. The monist
does accept such statements, yet none
is farther removed from atheism than
he. The hue and cry that is raised
against such statements as tending
to take away God is due to an inabil-
ity to rid ones self of the old anthro-
pomorphic view of God. So soon as
one takes the monistic conception of
the world he sees that whether one