Year: 1879

In question book prepared by an


able Sunday school expositor, and


used in many of our schools, occurs


the following comment on Heb. II 81


''Not, then, by evolution, but by crea-


tive power the worlds exist" It seems


to be assumed by many Christian


writers, as by the author quoted. that


the doctrine of evolution is opposed


to the teaching of the Bible. But
nothing can be farther from the truth.


and it is time the fallacy were exposed,
and that thoughtful people ceased
fighting evolution on any such ground.
am not defending the doctrine. l
do not say whether believe it or not.
But do affirm that it is not opposed
to the Biblical doctrine of creation,
and that it may be adopted by Chris
tian as consistently as by an infdel.


What does the Bible teach? Simply
that "In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth" Evolu-
ton does not touch the question of
the origin of the matter The latter
is eternal, for aught that science can
say, and here revelation settles point
that science has power neither to con-
firm nor deny. But the Bible does
not pretend to tell us by what process
the worlds were framed, or how much
time was required; for scarcely any
one believes the days of the Creative
Week to have been ordinary days. If
science, then, can ever so imperfectly
answer either of these questions, it
may do so without interfering in the
slightest degree with the word Of rev.
elation.


But it will be said that evolution
teaches that man is only the last of a
long ascending series of living beings,
and it is now trying to prove that the
first of the series, the lowest forms of
life, sprang directly out of inorganic
substance, and all this through the
operation of natural laws; while the
Bible says that "God created man in
his own image" Now is it quite GER
tain that we have a contradiction
here? The Bible teaches that God
created man out of the dust of the
earth. Evolutionists are trying to
read the same truth in the book of
Nature. The Bible has not word
upon the process by which the dust
became man, but only reveals the
power by which the creation was
wrought. Science, on the other hand,
demonstrates, not the power, but the
process. The only point with which
they both deal is the fact that man
came originally from the dust, and on
this point they agree, the only differ
ence being that science has not yet
fully demonstrated it.


| believe, as | was taught when a
child, that God made me; but know
that | grew up by natural laws from
a single microscopic cell. can as
easily believe that Adam was created
from the dust by the operation of nat
ural laws; and if that required the
existence of a series of intermediate
forms, it does not affect the fact of
creation in his case any more than in
my own.


We cannot too firmly maintain that
God is the Author of matter and of
life, but let us remember that the BIZ
BILE teaches the fact of creation and
the power by which it is wrought, but
leaves the methods for man to read,
so far as he can, in the book of Ma
ture.


We are accustomed to associate
fancies with fact. | have a friend
whose home | have never seen. He
has described to me some of its fea-
lures, and my imagination has added
others, until l have complete picture
of his home. Now if, when l visit it,
| should refuse to accept the evidence
of my eyes because the picture is not
the one l have so long dwelt upon, |
should be no more unreasonable than
he who refuses to accept the testi-
mony of science because it overthrows
preconceived ideas of the methods of
creation that his fancy has long asso-
ciated with the statements of the fact
and the power thereof which he reads
in the Bible. G. II. F.


HAvERHILL, MASS, Oct. 20, 1879.