Science and the Bible by Bolton Davidheiser Chairman, Science Division Biola College THE SCOPES TRIAL PART III
I n 1925 John Thomas Scopes was found guilty of breaking the law by teaching evolution in a public school of Tennessee. Clarence Dar- row, the chief lawyer for the defense, wanted his client to be found guilty so that the case could be appealed to higher courts. The reason for desir ing this was to keep the issue before the public. Scopes was found guilty, but the case went no further because in considering the appeal, the Ten nessee Supreme Court declared Scopes innocent. This had nothing to do with anything he had done or had not done. He was declared innocent because the judge had fined him $100, while the Supreme Court stated that according to law the jury should have fixed the amount of the fine in stead of the judge. One of the aims of Mr. Darrow was to establish his contention that the Bible is in harmony with the theory of evolution. Referring to the Bible, he said, “ We expect to show that it isn’t in conflict with the theory of evolution.” However, he did not take the trouble to be consistent, for when he thought it suited his purpose, he said, “ . . . the Bible, in many ways, is in conflict with every known sci ence.” At another time he said, “Mr. Bryan says that the Bible and evolu tion conflict. Well, I don’t know. I am for evolution anyhow.” The judge asked Mr. Malone, an other defense lawyer, “ . . . is it your opinion that the theory of evolution is reconcilable with the story of divine creation as taught in the Bible?” Mr. Malone answered, “Yes,” and went on to say that he had witnesses who would prove that there is no conflict between evolution and Scripture. One of the witnesses was Professor Maynard Metca'lf, an outstanding biologist, who taught one of the larg est Sunday School classes in the coun try. In his written testimony he said, “ There is no conflict, no least degree of conflict, between the Bible and the fact of evolution, but the literal- ist interpretation of the words of the Bible is not only puerile, it is insult ing, both to God and to human intel ligence.” Professor Mather, a geologist of Harvard University, said, “ The the ories of evolution commonly accepted in the scientific world do not deny
any reasonable interpretation of the stories of divine creation as revealed in the Bible . . .” Walter C. Whitaker, chairman of the committee which passed on the competency of new ministers for th*e Episcopal Church, said, “ . . . I am unable to see any contradiction be tween evolution and Christianity.” Professor Fay-Cooper Cole of the University of Chicago testified con cerning human evolution. Upon his return to the university, he found that there had been considerable com plaint because of his testimony in de fense of evolution. The president told him that there were more demands from the constituency of the univer sity for his removal than there had ever been for any other person on the faculty, and the board of trustees had considered the matter. Professor Cole asked what the board had de cided. The president pushed a piece of paper across the desk to him — the board had raised his salary! The fact is that the Bible and the theory of evolution do not agree and cannot be made to do so without com promise. Thomas Henry Huxley, Dar win’s chief defender, realized this and said so. But “modernists,” like the ones quoted here, endeavor to per suade the public that Scripture and evolution are in harmony. And now, men who have a reputation as con servative Christians and who profess to be Bible-believers, are telling the Christian public not only that now they may accept evolution “properly defined,” but that they cannot es cape doing so! Attempts to harmonize evolution with Scripture are particularly un successful in the case of Eve, the first woman, who was made from a portion of the first man, taken from his side. This cannot be harmonized with any theory of evolution. Also there can be no reconciliation between the theory "of evolution and the doc trine of salvation by grace through the vicarious sacrifice of Christ for sin, for the Bible states very clearly that the atonement is based upon the historic fall, through disobedience, of the first two human beings. History has abundantly demon strated the fact that compromise with the theory of evolution leads to “ mod ernism” and to a loss of faith in salvation by grace.
Deepen Sunday’s impact with Church-time! Sally likes Sunday School (see preceding page)! And she loves to go to church . . . because to Sally “going to church” means her own Primary Church . . . where she can participate freely in worship and learning activities geared to her own in terests and level of understanding. Pastor, adult congregation and children all miss maximum benefits when all ages attempt to worship together in an adult church service. An age-graded children’s church program makes the church hour meaningful to each age-group, permits adults to worship without distraction, and greatly increases total church attendance and outreach. Look over the four completely planned Scriptu re Press Chu rch -tim e courses (Nursery, Beginner, Primary, and Junior) soon! Ask for a sample packet of Church time programs, the new booklet, “ Success Tips for Children s Church Leaders,” and a showing of the new filmstrip, “ Is church FOR ADULTS ONLY?” . . . all offered freel Inquire at your Christian Bookstore or send coupon today to . . . SCRIPTURE PRESS g g ? {" sc r iptu re PRESS PUBLICATIONS M S B 1 j Wheaton, Illinois 60187 I Please send me FREE: I □ Church-time Sample Packet ; k b j - 103 j | □ New filmstrip "Is church FOR ADULTS I ONLY?” for showing on ■ — -----------------------o r _____________________ j j □ "Success Tips for Children’s Church I Leaders” booklet | Name_______ ____________________ j Address— ________________________________ j I City---------------------- state_________ Zip # ___{
j Church & Address. J _Position In church.
ZJ
OCTOBER, 1963
25
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs