June 1925
TH E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
252
A r Satan sTriangle: Evolution, Philosophy, Criticism S. J. Bole, P rofessor of Biology, W heaton College, Illinois The second of a series of articles by “ one who knows,”— th e first, appearing in th e May issue, being an “Introductory S tatem ent,” wherein Professor Bole gave th e reasons which moved him to voice his experience w ith an d his conclu sions concerning th e evolutionary theory. H e states: “I have g rea t sympathy fo r th is group of men (evolu tion ists) fo r I was one of them and w ith them for many years. Finally, * * God wonderfully and m iraculously saved me, and my hung ry soul * * w as satisfied. I am w riting especially fo r th e young people in H igh Schools an d Colleges, hoping th a t many w ill rea d th em an d be saved from a false philosophy of life, and shipw reck of faith .” ORGANIC EVOLUTION B CH ILDREN are no t yery old when they begin to ask lH such questions as these: “W here did I come from ” ? ‘ “Who made thé world” ? “W hat is d eath” ? “Where do folks go when they die” ? The m other’s answers to these may satisfy th e child for a time, b u t the explanations are seldom final and satisfying. Men and women, children older grown, are asking them over again. These etern al questions are always uppermost in the m inds of men, and because different answers are given, they become perplexing to us. There are several complex chemical explanations of the origin of life, all of which may be grouped under spontan eous generation. These explanations are still held in spite of th e laboratory experiments of P asteu r, Tyndall, and others, th a t should have, forever decided th is question in th e negative. Certain men try to avoid th is contradiction by saying th a t life does no t sta rt by spontaneous generation a t présent, bu t th a t it did when th e earth was younger and in a nascent condition. The explanation th a t they give for th is is th a t bacteria would now destroy such life a t its beginning. They pu t bacteria as a modern branch on th eir “ tree of L ife.” B acteria are the sm allest p lants known to man. If evolution were true, why should they no t have come into existence a t th e beginning. The only evidence to support th e ir assumption is ano th er assumption.
Life and death, God and imm ortality, gravitation and sunlight, are largely mysteries. The finite m ind can neither fully comprehend nor define such term s. “Evolu tion” is such a term . It is veiled in ignorance and mystery. This is why we are both interested and confused. To get anywhere w ith a subject like th is we m u st first carefully define our term s. W hat Is Meant by “Evolution” ? To begin w ith, th ere are th ree kinds of evolution: Ino r ganic, organic, and super-organic. “ Inorganic evolution” is defined as “ th e gradual development from th e simple unorganized condition of primal m a tte r to th e complex stru ctu re of the physical universe” (R ichard S. Lull, Organic Evolution, p. 6). “ Organic evolution” teaches th a t “th e existing species of animals and p lants have been derived or evolved through the geological ages from the simplest form s of life in the beginning” (Bergen and Davis, Principles of Botany, p. 154). “ Super-organic evolution” is the application of the .evolu tionary idea of devèlopment to all phases of life, including history, religion, government, morals, and mechanical and indu strial progress. Organic evolution is th e kind about which we h ear so much. Its meaning is no t generally understood. One reason is th a t it has th re e distinct aspects. They are (1) the origin of life, (2 ) th e process by means of which life has been evolved, and (3) th e resu lts of plant and animal life. The Origin of Life There are many modern explanations of th e origin of life. These may all be grouped under th ree heads, (1) special creation, (2) spontaneous generation, and (3) th e eternity of life. Orthodox Christians believe now, as always, in “special creation.” Evolutionists, of every sort, deny this explana tion of th e origin of life. Henry Fairfield Osborn expresses th is view for evolutionists in general when he states th at, “ from the period of th e earliest stages of Greek though t man has been eager to discover some n atu ra l cause of evolu tion, and to abandon th e idea of sup ern atu ral intervention in th e order o f n a tu re ” (The Origin and Evolution of Life, p. 9).
T hat life has existed from etern ity as microscopic forms out in space is ano ther assumption th a t has for its sup port im agination and no t reason. This explanation does no t explain. The A rgum ent fo r Special C reation How then did life originate on the earth ? The conclu sion from evidence is special creation. The conclusion from either faith or reason is special creation. And this is not the special creation of Charles Darwin,— th e m iraculous creation of a few form s of microscopic life which through countless m illions of years evolved into th e life of today. I t is th e special creation of Genesis, which states th a t plants, and animals, and man were m iraculously created afte r th e ir kind. God did no t create life as spores, and seeds, and eggs, and embryos. Had th is been so, who would have cared for these imm ature form s of life a t th e beginning? W hat is the cause of the evolutionary process? Men have made various guesses as to th e cause of th is assumed process. We shall give briefly a few of th e guesses th a t have been made to explain th e evolutionary process. Lamarck, a F renchm an, was p ast m iddle age when Charles Darwin was born. He came to believe in evolution late in life. He ta u g h t th a t “ use and disuse” brought about changes in th e organs of animals, the long neck of th e giraffe being due to stretch ing its neck to feed upon th e leaves of trees. A lexander Agassiz was greatly surprised to find the herds of wild giraffes feeding w ith some difficulty on grass. In th e same way Lam arck explained long legs and webbed feet. Also, by disuse birds lost th eir power of flight and snakes th e ir legs. W ith th e overthrowal of “ th e inheritance of acquired characters,” th is explanation was relegated to history. Saint H ilaire, ano ther French scientist, was a young man when Darwin was born. He worked w ith L am arck for many years in the Ja rd in des P lantes in Paris. W ith Lam arck he believed in Organic Evolution. However, he held th a t “ the change from one species to ano ther m ight be by. sud den leaps,” a theory quite the opposite from L am arck’s slow process. He believed th e change took place in th e
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker