The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-11-22
EVOLUTION AND REVELATION.
ONE DEALS IN PROCESSES, THE
OTHER IN CAUSES.

No Conflict Between the Two as Long
rs They Are Confined to Their Re
spective Departments, Says Rev.
Chns. ii. StrOng-EvOlutiOn the
story of the Process; Man Must
Have His own Belief of the Cause.
A Point Beyond Which Evolution
May Not Reach.
Rev. Charles H. Strong preached the
third of his series of sermons on the sub
ject of the Apostles Greed at St. Johns
church last night. This sermon dealt en-
tirely with the subject of evolution, and
the reconciliation of the teachings of sci
ence with those of the gospel.
There is no more definite statement of
the creation, Rev. Mr. Strong said, than
that contained in the Apostles Creed.
GOD was the maker of heaven and
earth" He referred TO the many dscov-
cries of science through which the laws of
evolution have been traced out. and said
that there is now no antagonism between
those discoveries of science and that
statement of the creation contained in the
creed. There is no antagonsm between
revelation and science, he said, as long as
each confines itself to its own department
Evolution and revelation are separate and
specific subjects.
He spoke of the antagonism which has
existed between the discoveries of sci
ence and the first chapter of Genesis, uh-
til the literal Interpretation of that first
chapter was abandoned. The question of
the order of development, however was
a difficult one. In that, there does ex-
list an antagonism between the discoveries
science &c in hA fire
chapter of Genesis. These discrepancies
puzzle until we refer to the definitions,
namely, that evolution deals specially in
the domain of processes, while revelation
deals specially in the domain of causes.
Genesis contains sufficient for our relig-
ion; the science of evolution sufficient for
our knowledge.
The teachings of evolution and it's laws
could not have been unfolded to the men
of the day in which Genesis was writ
ten. Their minds were not prepared for
thee reception of such teachings. Rev.
Mr.. Strong presented some points design
ed to give q better understanding of the
meaning of evolution. 1t is the change
from the simpler to the more complex
form, he said. The trouble with many
writers on the subject was their indis-
criminate use of words which failed to
convey the intended meaning. Huxley,
for instance, was in the habit of using the
WOTQS cause, origin ana genesis, Wnen
they are things that man is unable to ex-
plain.
Rev. Mr. Strong then discussed in brief
the theory of evolution, as applied to the
universe, to the earth, to the animal life
upon the earth and to man. Many, he
said, disliked to believe that man de-
scended from lower forms, but all the fos,
sill remains of prehistoric man gave I'M
doubted evidence of this fact. In all forms
of life it is shown by science that there
is a regular graduation back to an original
type. Why should it not be so with re-
gard to man. The struggles of animal life
have been upward and onward TO some
thing better, something nobler, until at
last comes man, stupid at first but grad
TALLY developing to what he is to-day,
with the hope of a still grander destiny
in the future.
Rev. MIR. Strong said he had sketched
this development not to glorify evolution
or to glorify man, but to ask the ques-
ton as to whether it did not seem more
glorious for God to build a world in that
way, developing, according TO regular and
orderly laws, than to do it by an immedi-
ate creation? Evolution is the story Of
the process and man must have his own
belief of the cause. Il believe in God
the maker of heaven and earth" Oar
win discusses the descent of man, but we
may speak of the ascent of man, in ac-
cordance with a holy law. There is a
limit which evolution may reach, but be-
yond which it cannot go. To those who
attempt to make it responsible for more
than is the case we may ask whence
comes life, whence comes instinct, and
whence comes mind and moral reason?