T HE K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S n atu re contradict th a t, or does it not ra th e r show th a t in his personal, sp irit ual n atú re man stands alone as bearing the image of God on earth , and founds a new kingdom in the world which can only be carried back in its origin to the divine creative cause. (4) I m ight cite even the region of m an’s origin, for I th ink science in creasingly points to th is very region in Babylonia as the seat of man’s origin. Is it then th e picture of th e condition in which man was created, pure and unfallen, and the idea th a t man, when introduced into th e world, was not left as an orphaned being— th e divine care was about him-—th a t God spake w ith him and made known H is will to him in such forms as he Was able to apprehend — is it th is th a t is in contradiction w ith history? It lies outside th e sphere of science to contradict this. Personally; I do not know of any w orthier concep tion th an th a t which supposes God to have placed H imself in communication w ith man, in living relations w ith His moral creatures, from th e very first. Certainly th e re would be contradiction if Darw inian theory had its way and we had to conceive of man as a slow, g rad ual ascent from the bestial stage, bu t I am convinced, .and have elsewhere sought to show, th a t genuine science teaches no such doctriné. Evolution is not to be identified offhand w ith Dar- winianism. L ater evolutionary theory may ra th e r be described as a revolt against Darwinianism, and leaves the story open to a conception of man quite in harmony w ith th a t of the Bible. Of th e fall, I have already said th a t if the story of it were not in the Bible we should require to pu t it th ere for our selves in order to explain the condition of th e world as it is. On th e question of p atriarchal long evity, I would only say th a t th ere is here on the ope hand th e question of interp retation , for, as th e most conser-
16
of th e sun ’s revolution around the earth— I speak of these things popu larly. It is difficult to see how they should be so measured when th e sun th a t is to measure them is not in tro duced un til th e fou rth day. Do not th ink th a t th is la rg e r reading of the days is a new speculation. You find Augustine in early times declaring th a t it is hard or altog eth er impossible to say of w hat fashion these days are, and Thomas Aquinas, in the middle ages, leaves th e m a tte r an open question. To my m ind these n arrativ es in Genesis stand out as a marvel, not for its dis cordance w ith science, bu t for its agree m en t w ith it. Time does not perm it me to en ter into th e details of the story of man’s origin in Genesis, bu t I have already indicated th e general point of view from which I th ink th is narrative is to be regarded. It would be well if those who speak of disagreem ent w ith science would look to the g reat tru th s embedded in these n arratives which science may be called upon to confirm. There is for example: (1) The tru th th a t man is th e last of God’s created works— the crown and summ it of God’s creation. Does science contradict th at? (2) There is th e g reat tru th of the un ity of th e human race. No ancient people th a t I know of believed in such unity of the race, and even science until recently cast doubts upon it. How strange to find th is g réât tru th of th e unity of m ankind confirmed in the pages of th e Bible from th e very be ginning. This tru th holds in it already the doctrine of monotheism , for if God is th e C reator of th e beings from whom th e whole race sprang, He is th e God of th e whole race th a t sprang from them. (3) There is the declaration th a t man was made in God’s image— th a t God breathed into man a sp irit akin to His own— does the science of m an’s
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker