based upon such questionable pre mises? One wonders how this scien tist can pronounce natural evolution as one of the “least questionable and best demonstrated facts in science” when he himself raises questions all along. And again, how can he say, “it is almost impossible now- a-days not to be an evolutionist.” How is it possible to be one so long as the theory has to rest on mere surmisings? The importance of filling in these numerous “gaps” is evidenced in the almost frantic, though futile efforts, of scientists to find the “missing link.” The search still goes hopefully on, but it is “a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat that isn’t there.” Now we proceed to the fantastic history of man according to du Nouy. “Man,” he says, “evoluted until God gave him a conscience.” Nature, so this theory goes, has in man finally succeeded in producing its master piece in the shape of a human brain. But this form only “emerged after ten million centuries.” According to this, it took nature a long time to produce this wonderful failure. One of the tools of evolution, ac- . cording to this author, is “tradition,”’ which is constituted of experiences remembered and passed on by speech. He calls attention to the fact that “thousands of young dogs and cats and tens of thousands of chick ens and other animals have been run over on the roads since the invention of the automobile. This will continue for a long time simply because the experience of the parents who have survived by chance cannot be trans mitted to the young for lack of speech and tradition.” If this condi tion is to continue for a "long time,” it is assumed that the time will eventually come when we will have talking dogs, cats and chickens. It is1 hard to believe this statement came from a sober scientist. Du Nouy has coined a new word in this discussion: telefmalism, from tele, far, and fmalism, the final state. By this he means the final view, the supreme destiny of man. This, he claims, is in accord with the Bible which he calls “one of the most ancient and respectable of hu man traditions,” though its origin, he states, is unknown. He finds the second chapter of Genesis especially supports his conclusions “provided that this chapter is interpreted in a new way and considered as the highly symbolical expression of truth . . . unless we interpret it in this way, it is obscure.” But du Nouy declares the “concept of evolution was un known at the time the Bible was written.” How then, we ask, can any interpretation of the Bible produce or support the evolutionary theory? SEPTEMBER, 1947
We would like to advise this scholar that Genesis 2 is intended as pure history, and is to be accepted or rejected as such. One can as well use the multiplication table in sup port of this theory by “interpreting it in a new way*.” Some things can not be handled by a process of in terpretation, and this is one of them. Du Nouy admits that on the basis of present knowledge, “it is impos sible to explain, or to account for, not only the birth of life, but even the appearance of the substances which seem to be required to build life.” But, we answer, the Bible ac counts for both of these, and we are bold to declare that the Word of God is correct in that scientists have nothing to successfully contradict it. The Inner Life H E who loves Jesus and loves truth, The man of really inner life, From unchecked passions free, Can turn himself with ease to God, And lift himself above himself in thought, % And rest in peace, enjoying Him. The man who tastes life as it really 1 sJk hiot as men talk of it, Not as men value it, He is the true philosopher, Taught of God, and not of men. The man who learns to walk the inward road, Weighing outward life as little, Asking for no set places, wanting no fixed times To. pray his prayers to God, He soon collects his thoughts, Because he never dissipates his life, Upon the outward world. —THOMAS a' KEMPIS Their own theories remaining so un certain and foundationless cannot be logically, or scientifically, accepted. Genesis 1 and 2 contain the whole- creation story. This earth > teemed with living creatures and was cov ered with vegetation for ages. It suf fered floods, convolutions and inter nal fires during these times. Finally the earth was covered with water and this condition prevailed for added ages. Coal, minerals, oil, etc., are the products of this process. “God formed the earth to be inhabited” (Isa. 45:18). The trouble with some scientists is that they mistake for mation for evolution. Creation had to do with elements. Shape and form came afterward. As to man, according to the Scrip tures, God created him separate from any prior species; time or* condition.
Du Nouy supports this fact in de claring that each group, order or family, seems to have been “bom suddenly” without proof of transi tional forms and without any au thentic connection between a new group and an ancient one. And this, we believe, is the teaching of Gene sis. Why then should he introduce his theory as a “new way” of inter pretation when that “new way” con tradicts both Genesis and science? As to the future, this scholar hardly knows whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. “We are at the begin ning,” he declares, “of the transfor mation which will end in the superior race.” Man, he thinks, links the past with the future “rich in higher prom ises. Such is human destiny.” Lest we here and now, be tempted to set our house in order to welcome this promising condition, we are warned “it will require a sustained effort for hundreds of centuries.” A further damper to our rising hopes comes with this statement: “This theory represents a step in the direction of a truth which may never be at tained." Another discouraging as pect: dividing the human race into two groups, the animal and the spir itual, du Nouy raises the question as to who can tell which will outlive the other in the remote future. “No body,” he states, “not Oven our ob server” (evidently referring to him self). This conflict has, we are told, become a matter of life and death, and all we can hope for is that hu manity will profit by the lesson. But, he adds, “ Alas, we doubt it.” Destiny carries with it the thought of certain finality. If there are ques- tions as to the progress, we can have no dear destiny in view. The Bible divides the human race into two groups—the saved and the unsaved. The destiny of each is clearly out lined. The saved are headed up in Christ who is “the way.” All others constitute the unsaved. Evolution does not operate in either group. One of the problems that has com fronted moral evolutionists through the years is the Person of Jesus Christ. Du Nouy has a unique solu tion to thjs difficulty. Christ, he says, was, in a sense, the premature exam ple—an intermediary—perhaps a mil lion years in advance of the rest of humanity in the evolutive process. A few others—prophets and martyrs —have approached the state of per fection. They dropped in on the hu man race “millions of years in ad vance,” samples of the race “destined to cover the earth.” This book will be welcomed, by soma» as a “light that shineth in a dark place,” but whatever light and hope it brings will be short-lived. This human race of itself and by itself “is getting no better fast.” PAGE NINETEEN
Made with FlippingBook Annual report