Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1919-1980, 1922-02-27

To the EditOri-May take ad-
vantage of the freedom OF your
IOpen Forum column and add lit
tie more to the discussion concern
ing religion and evolution, re-
stricting myself to the original Is
sue, 1. e., the story Of the special
creation of Adams as found In
Genesis and the evolutionary con-
cept.
In the first place let me state
that our discussion has nothing to
do with the existence OF God, i'm
mortality, the nature OF freedom,
etc. These are important Ques-
tions. | am believer In God and
believe in Immortality. l am a
theist. The difficulty lies In the
fact that there are those who
think that unless one has exactly
their particular brand Of theology
he Is an atheist and also not a
Christian. am a theist and a
Christian, but my belief in God
and faith as Christian are based
On stronger foundations than the
story of creation as found In He
brew scriptures.
The Reverend Doctor Milliken
has the right to his beliefs and no
doubt has valid grounds for so be-
lieving. My contention is that as
long as there are men Of differ
ent experiences. they will differ.
and SO no one person or groups OF
persons have the right to sit on
the judgment seat and claim that
they and no others have the keys
to truth and to heaven.
Only the first paragraph of DR..
Milliken's article and the last
need be given any particular at
Lention as bearing on the question
at Issues. In that paragraph, only
The last section Is pertinent. |
am not interested In lard, oil, mil
lions or anything else. The fact
that Mr.. Rockefeller has given
millions to educational institu-
tions; medical and educational
foundations does not affect our
problems in the least. Now then,
what are the points to be consid-
cred? To quote from the doctors S
letter, 1T is to be noted, however,
that while evolution nowhere ac-
counts for origins, but merely for
modes of variations, Genesis &C
counts for origin, and omits t.
state Gods modus operanda."
Evolution does not discuss ort-
gins because evolution is only one
phase of scinetific theory. Sci
ence does not deal with origins.
rhe sciences are descriptive OF
physical phenomena. Evolution
airy theory does just what lies in
its dOmain-describes a mode Oh
development, unfolding, change,
differentiation, and has to do with
the organic world primarily.
l am surprised that DR.. Milliken
would make the assertion found
in the last part of the sentence,
'omits to state Gods modus oper-
anda."
We have in Gensis exactly the
method by which God created. 1t
was divine command, according to
one of the writers.
When we discuss origins We
must leave the field OF the sciences
and enter into the realms OF theol-
ogy and metaphysics. We are In
the realm Of speculation. The
nearest we get to the descriptive
science is in the philosophy of
biology; philosophy of chemistry,
etc.
We must not generalize. Let
US come to the issue in point.
In Genesis LII we have the Gre
alton of the first pair Of human
beings; the degeneration and
moral depravity of mankind. We
nave then the story OF Noah-IV-
Wis and the flood (VL9-IX).
The modus operanda is very |
simple to the Hebrew writer.
And God said =. e e. E. and it
was So" God here is rendered
Elohim. Here. however. we have
a higher conception Of God. God
IS self-existant being. Unlike
the Vehwek who is antropomor-
phic, who plants a garden, takes
a walk when it is cool in the
evenings, talks with Adam.
Elohim and Yehweh (here we
have evidences of two writers and
an editor Of the two with his own
modifications) create man in diff
ferent ways. In chapter one, for
example, man and woman are
creates together. In chapter two,
man is at first alone. Only the
assumption that the Book of Gene
sis is a composite book can the
of many elements be
Britannica 11th Ed, Vol. XI. u.
$50. That the prehistoric ages
in Genesis I-XI, are at complete
variance with modern science and
archaeological research is un-
questionable, but although it is
to regard them any
longer either genuine history, or