The San Francisco call., 1896-04-27
on, grand secretary of the /. o. B. B., is visit
ng relatives in Sacramento, Folsom and Rock
DIR. Y0RK's LECTURE.
Christianity and Atheism-Was Charles
Darwin an Atheist?

dh <Abhcist.
DR.. York spoke to good house last
evening at Scottish Hall on the subject.
(Which Is the Most Rational-Atheism or
Christian Theism?" with a prelude on
Darwin and the development theory. The
speaker said:
''The theory of natural development,
known as Darwinism, to most thinking
people seems to be more rational solution
of the problem Of how things in the organic
world came into existence than the &C.
count given in the Hebrew Bible.
And previous to the year 1860 the
scientific opinions upon the process of de-
velopment of the organic world was one of
chaos, and men of science were apparently
cropping in the dark. And every one who
rejected the special creation hypothesis
found himself unable to propose theory
which would find acceptance in rational
thinking minds. Professor Huxley says
that in 1857 he had no answer ready, and
he does not think that any one else had
any satisfactory answer to the problem of
creation. But in the fullness OF time
Charles Darwin came and the darkness
was turned to light, and his book, The
Origin of Species, has been q cathode ray
in dispelling the darkness transmitted
from the childhood of our race.
Charles Darwin was not an atheist, save
in Christian sense, but believed that the
Deity was the supreme power of nature,
permeating the world of matter and mind.
Darwinism is not atheism, in the sense of
a denial of God. but is agnostic on that
subject, and is not even antagonistic to
Christian theism, only so far as the theory
of evolution exposes the childish absurd
ity of dogmatic theology: Darwin teaches
that man and all the higher forms of life
| upon the globe are simply the modified
forms, or descendants, of lower forms of
life; and Professor Huxley says that the
mode of origin and the early Stages of the
development OF mankind are Identical
with those of the animals Immediately
below him in the SCALE"
Pointing to one conclusion, is the theory
of Darwin, sustained by a monument of
facts, that man, with other animals most
nearly allied to him has descended from
common ancestor, And after ALL even
if man had his origin in common with
lizards, snakes and apes, and monkeys,
there does not seem to be anything more
depressing in such origin than in the Bible
story, Of being made of dust and falling
from a perfect state to a state OF sin and
misery. And we think that Darwinism is
far the most scientific, rational and hope
ful view of life and origin of things, be-
sides the more hopeful as pointing to u
progressive future for man as an individ-
ual and as race.
To my mind there is nothing in evolu-
ton that precludes the possibility of life
beyond. Science teaches that the disso-
luton of one variety produces the evolu-
ton of the next variety. The invertebrate
dies, and the fish appears; the fish
perishes, and the amphibium is born; he
gives way TO the reptile, and the reptile
mammal man is developed. Why should
evolution stop here? Are we the pinnacle
of life? Or are we but one of the links in
tnat endless chain stretching out from the
darkness OF the past, and on we know not
whittier? If nature began with the mol
lusk must she stop with the human2 1
simply do not know. And while it is true
that one world at time is about as much
as most people can attend to, yet we
would not disparage the hope of any one
of meeting their loved ones beyond the
grave.