The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-05-30


validity in the Darwinian argument that
because certain analogies occur between
myself and the lower animals, we are
necessarily descended from common
ancestor, or that because this general
similarity Of construction is in the one
case the result or a common origin IL
must always be SO, but because, as Oar
win says, the similarity of the highest
order of monkeys to the lowest order
Of man is more obvious than that even
of different classes of monkies, and there
is no reason in arbitrarily insisting on
the cousinship Of the mastodon and the
field mouse and denying that of man to
1oin. One is as probable as improb-
able as the other. though neither can be
deduced from the other.
1 still unable to see why one who
believes in the omniscience and omnipo-
tence of God should advocate theory
which Huxley says is only hypothesis
and not even a theory. There is no more
reason to suppose that God saw fit to
make all living creatures from one prim-
ordial germ than that lie saw fit to
create them separately on general
analogy.
But added to the dangerous tendency
of a Christians declaring his belief IN
evolution, is the peril of calling it OAR
winism. While Darwin and Huxley
vigorously protested against being called
aetllists-their teachings are aetheistlc.
They profess to believe in God. but make
God a nonentity. You may be able to
accept just so much of Darwnism ana
| no more, but the majority of men who
sip of it are logical enough to Suip down
the whole poisonous dose.
I once heard a minister and trainer OF
youth. of powerful personal magnetism
and influence, declare in a. rellg!ouS ser
vice that every young man should be IN
timately acquainted with Darwin and
Huxley, and Darwin eliminates the hand
Of God from nature and HUXLEY: ac-
cordinE to Hodge "calls believers in the
Scripture. and apparently believes i'll
personal God, bigots. old ladies of both
sexes, biblioIa tors. fools etc. etc The
speaker never limited that there was
anything in their theories to be depre-
Gated. The subtle, insinuatinS influence
Of such a teacher, whether he spoke ig-
norantly or as one himself intimately
acquainted with Darwin and Huxley, s
I have reason to suppose he was. is per-
ncious in the extreme.
Some one will probably sheer at the
audacity of upstarts taking issue
with the profoundest scientists of the
age. to say nothing of the above-men-
toned professor. But do not the Scrip
lures say, Il will destroy the wisdom of
the wise. and the prudence of the pr,-
dent will reject" Hath not God made
foolish the wisdom of the word?' THE
foolishness of God is wiser than the
wisdom Of men,. God chose the foolish
things of the world that he might put TO
shame them that are wise and hid
these things from the wise and under
standing and revealed them to babes p
Like Milton. we may CINE God as
laughing at mans puny conceptions of
things infinite and eternal Therefore I feel
justified in saying tina the man who is so
increda bly, incredulous to swallow the
rreposterous ahS1lrdity of the self-crea-
ton or accidental existence of the world
or the spontaneous development ana evO-
luton of matter. while he cannot talieye
in the Ail-Wise and All-Po=erfnl God
the author of ma ture and nature s. Ia w=.
if he can work out and bell ,rn such a
complex theory that of e!-bl :i.Cr. g nd
yet profess himself an agnos.ic as re-
CARDS the great truths that i.a:e Keen
revealed through Gods Word. such
man. l say. protesting himself t, ho wise.
becomes the greatest fool ~ Ill E OILS.
Richmond. Va, May 26tl,. J. NJ.