May 1925
TH E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
199
Smarts Triangle: Evolution, Philosophy, Criticism S. J. Bole, Professor of Biology, Wheaton College, Illinois
The first of a series of articles nnder this caption by one who speaks with authority, hairing, after graduating at Ann Arbor, earned credits in several dozen graduate courses in the Universities of Illinois and Wisconsin; later teaching an<* breeding in the University of Illinois, and now for six years Professor of Biology at Wheaton College. He was converted from a belief in the evolutionary theory to absolute faith in the inerrant Word of God while teaching in the University, though he had been a church member and teacher of a Bible class for many years. He writes especially to help, if possible, save from the shipwreck of their faith, the thousands of young men and women in onr High Schools and Colleges. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT H HIS series of articles is the direct result of the reports of two meetings held during the closing days of 1924. The Science League of America was organized in San Francisco “to combat the work of the Fundamentalists in their efforts to keep the teaching of the theory of organic evolution out of the schools.” been educated men, men daring enough to push out beyond the borderland of facts into the realm of theory. They have been men of many nationalities, interested in different fields of thought; but always'adventurous spirits willing to risk all in their efforts to penetrate a little further into the unknown. From Shadows to Reality
I have a great sympathy for this group of men, for I was one of them and one with them for so many years. Finally, on another “Damascus Road,” God wonderfully and miraculously saved me. I was no longer in the valley among the shadqws. Theory gave way to faith, and a “peace that passeth all understanding” came into my life. My hungry soul, hungry for this , and the life beyond, was satisfied. One looking through a green glass sees a green world. It can’t be otherwise. Up to the age of thirty or forty we collect and formulate the ideas that give us a philosophy of life. This philosophy may or may not be changed later in life. Such a change is the exception, not the rule. On What Foundation? Why do I emphasize philosophy? I find from my own mental introspections that I built my own evolutionary and modernistic beliefs on a philosophical foundation. Why should John Burroughs and Luther Burbank be disciples of the evolutionary teaching? Why should H. G. Wells and Friedrich Nietzsche believe-.¡evolution and disbelieve the Bible? Why should Professors Osborn of Columbia and Schuchert of Yale pin their faith to evolution? They all believe evolution and disbelieve God’s Word because they look through the philosophical spectacles of a materialistic philosophy. Materialism eliminates the Christian’s God. The denial of the Bible as God’s revealed Word to man makes neces sary the denial of Special Creation, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Ascension of our Lord. If man evolved up from unicellular life, then he must still be evolving. If this is true man has never fallen. If man has not “sinned and come short of the glory of God,” there is no need for a Saviour. If Christ is not the Son of God, the Saviour of men, then the Bible is only a book and the grave ends all. “Satan’s Triangle” Defined By “Satan’s triangle” is meant a false science, a false philosophy, and a false religion; or Evolution, Pagan Phil osophy, and Destructive Biblical Criticism. Evolution is a philosophy. Science is classified knowl edge. Because evolution is a doctrine, a theory at most, it is not knowledge. ^Therefore, it is not science but philos ophy. It is a certain kind of philosophy, theoretical and pagan. Evolution, Philosophy, and Criticism cannot be consistently separated. Theoretically, if a person believes one of them, he must believe the other two. As a matter (Continued on page 231)
The American Society for the Advancement of Science was held in Washington during the holidays. The one paper read at this meeting and featured in the daily papers of the country was that on “Darwin and Bryan-SfA Study in Method,” by Edward L. Rice, professor of Zoology at Ohio Wesleyan University. it is very evident from the papers and addresses given at these two meetings that these teachers who are so zealous to keep evolution in the public schools of the country deny the Bible. I have often asked myself how educated and cultured men. could trade the Bible, with its living Christ and belief in immortality, for a materialistic philosophy which denies’ the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” and a life with Him beyond the grave. About the only reasonable answer that has ever come to me is that Satan is able to get such men as these to hate God. Those that hate God will logically deny His Son, the Saviour of men. These articles are not written to change the philosophies of men and women who believe in evolution. The Triune God alone can do this. We are writing especially for the thousands of young men and women in high school and college. They are there preparing for their life work. They are also forming a philosophy of life. Shall this philosophy of life include God, the Bible, and a life with Him beyond the grave? Or shall the Creator and the Bible be denied and the grave end all? There is a Chris tian philosophy. Destructive Biblical Criticism does not satisfy the reason or the soul. The evidence is greater against than for organic evolution. These truths came to me after leaving the class room and the graduate seminar. The Christian point of view was not presented by my pro fessors, either through the lecture, text-book, or refer ences. “The New, not True; the True, not New” I am writing these articles with the hope that many col lege students may read them and conclude with Emerson that, “The things that are new are not true, and the things that are true are not new.” May these young people, fight ing for their faith, realize that a college degree does not aid them in solving these far-reaching and eternal problems. In fact a college education is quite apt to give a psycho logical “set” that hinders one in answering such a question. Evolution is not new. For upwards of three thousand years, this doctrine has been discussed by men belonging to certain schools of philosophy and religion. Like the tides, it has been ebbing and flowing. Its adherents have
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs