New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-01-13
EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE.
DR DJ-rFIELDs VIEWS ON THE CON
FLIcT WITH sCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY
ur CONSIDERS EVOLUTIONARY ANTHRopoLOGY
TO INVOLVE \ DIRECT DENIAL OF THE
ScRIPTrRAL RECORD.

sCRIPTURAL RECORD.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
sir. II tho opnions OF an individual are regarded
"a Of sufficient general interest to be quoted c'''
cised and condemned. In work so scho''iy ""'
authoritative as DR. Andrew ID. Whitcs H''.o''
Of the Warfare Of Science with Religion an" ~
he reauoicd with criticism and condemnation II,
journal so widely circulated and inhueh''a' "s ~,
Ncw-York Tribune both justice to the indiViuun'
i ,ho ,r,e,ests Of the truth--in this case truth
If the prayest Importance demand that the cont'o
verted opinions be fully and accurately stated VIII
the connection I'm which they were orisina's pun
lsbed As public attention has been caiieu III TIC
way mentioned 10 my views on evoiu'lon 'S
specially ask the publication III Inv '''
the following statement;
Twentv wears ago I preached a sermon In the
College Chappel on Luke ill., 49, Adam. which was
The Son of God" The discourse was comph'i-
son with the Scriptures of "Evolutonism as IL ne
spects Man. This expression was in'ehu u 10 III
cllde not merely the origin OF man ny e'''u''o'''
but evolutionary anthropoloey-the doc".''e ~
snectinr man involved in the hypothesis an"
,roued HI, its recognized opponents. 1t was not
q discussion Of evolution scientihc question:
but simply this whether the hypothesS wv ''"'
or unfoundcd is it, so far as II respects man. co"
sistent with tho Scriptures
Several Of my colleagues and other ileh"s ~
ouested the publication Of the discourse. TIE Rev
view" proposed that | make 1t the OASIS OF AT
article for "The Review which would allow
more extended and exhaustive discussion Oh nn'
subject than WAS practcable IN a S'i"o'. -"
invitation accepted. and the article puonshe'
in January 1873. Some phraseology occurs '"a'
Nigh, not have been used had The artich Deer
originally written for "Thc Review. This Is men
toned not nv way Of apology but Of explanation
u was stated In the introduction: we nave no
svmpathy with those who are disposed to magnify
tn. so-cacd conflict between science auo re-
Ucion Between believers in the scriptures an"
scientists not avowcdy atheistic there are p"'
two subjects that need occasion serious con'ro-
vcrsy-the order OF creation and the particular
subject proposed for discussion evolutionsm as
II resnects man Moreover. the former subject
apart from It's bearing the question OF irsplt"-
ton is comparatively unmportant. as IT In no way
affects the system of spiritual truth taught III tue
Word OF God.
It was further stated i'm the Introduction; par
wins first work on The Origin OF Species was not
generally regarded as involving any serious or ir-
reconcilabe conflict with the Scriptures ih''"id-
t,ons as TO the extent 10 which tho hyNo'h'SS
might be pressed did excite some hPpreh'hs'"''
but It was not until these limitations were us
tinctlv avowed and laboriously a1vocate' III NE
subsequent work on The Descen. Of Man tha'
tho great mass Of believers in revelation ana 'h'
entire mass of unbelievers felt that The scriptures
were assailcd and that evolufionSm had become
a religious question and one of vital importance
We make these quotations 10 indicate distinctly
the precise point At issue. and also 10 correct Tue
statement Of The Tribune tDecember 20 mat II
puffield Numbered against DarwnT origin al
spccies'' and the representation Of Dr. Whli'
that Or Dufield moro bitter against
"thc evolution doctrine than DIR. Hodge" whose
anger seemed madden him.
THE sCRIPTrRAT RECORD.
After quoting the record OF the origin Of man in
Genesis H. T. THE Lord God iormed man OF ire
dust of the ground and breathed into MS hoS'rlS
the breath of life and man became u living soul
90 said Were this the entire Scriptural record
on the subject rs many seem To assume thef"
would he no serious difficulty in Interpreting 1t in
harmony with the hypothesis Of evolution. Inc
Divine Crea OF all things was not only originally
tho author Of the universe. but has continuously
been the uphoder and controller OF IN" various
forces in nature acting ceaselessy. according to
the laws lie has established. Accordingly. phe-
nomena which arc Immediately the result OF these
forces operating II may be through long periods
of time In the Scriptures frequently attributel
IN Cod and I'm terms that might seem 10 imply
direct divine agency. There is nothng therefore III
the above Scrptura statement. taken by itself,
that Is necessarily inconsistent with the hypothesis
Of evolution To determine. however. whether
IT should be so interpreted. other Scriptura IAN
guagc must be taken into account
First-In the record of the crca ION OF me M
feror, forms Of vegetable and animal life. the Ian
euage is And God said. Let the earth bring forth
etc And the earth brought forth. etc. And
God said Let the waters bring FORTH etc. And
the waters brought forth" etc In regard TO the
creation of man the record Is. And God said. Let
lis make man. etc. 80 God created man. ETC.
Was this different language accidental? Or II de-
signedly different. it not to indicate direr-
ent and direct divine agency in mans cr'a-
ton?
in tn he -
us make man I'm our image. And God made man
I'm His owl image Is it credible tina this lam
guage was intended TO teacr thai within the
limits of variation 10y natural law of an animal
from the form and faculties Of tn" parent the son
of one of the highest orders Of apes was superior
TO its-or hls-mmedatc progenitor ana that in
virtue of this variation in the ascending scale it
or he-became living soul made in the image of
God?
Third-The record of the creation - woman. not
synchronous WITH but subsequent 10 IN" creation
Of man. and not by natural law. but in way
supernatural. miraculous, ny immediate diVlhe
agency.
Fourth-Throughort the Scriptures the record in
Genesis of the origin OF til race ana tn" fall Of
the first pair from the estate in wnicn they were
created is accepted historical fact. for example
a) the genealogical table in the first chapter
of Chronicles ,b) the genealOgy of Jesus in
Luke. iii: &c, Jesus reply to the Pharisecs on the
subject Of divorce. Matthew. xix; Id Pauls arg,l-
ment or the doctrine of imputation in Romans. V:
te) his argument on the doctrine OF III" icsurrec-
ton in I Corinthians. XIV. 10 his teaching as to
the relation Of woman To man. corinthians M. and
Timothy ii. The Tribune editorial says. "Darwin's
hypothesis overthrow the popular belief in the
literal truthfuness OF the Bible This is the
editors way OF putting the i.ici W. were Lain'ain-
ing Of the Inconsistency of evoutionism respecting
man and the Scriptures.
THE MORE SERIOUS CONFLICT.
\ more serious conflict however remains 10 be
considered Evoutionism and the Scriptures differ
radically such fundamental religious ccncep-
tons az the spiritual nature of man. the immor-
tally of the soul. the mature Of sin and the way
of salvation from sin ana its consequences. We
do not say nor believe that oil who. for scientific
reasons. accept an hypothesis the origin OF
by evolution. accept the logical consequences more
or less distinctiycly avowed by the recognized cx-
Of he HI ". ~ Il ~