60
The Fundamentals some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to show why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lowly form, through the laws of variation and natural selec tion, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.” He confessed his fear by protesting his innocence: “I have done nothing—only explained a choice between two theories of bringing man into the world”. This way of putting it is characteristic. He often refers to traversing the doctrine of successive creations, as the sum of his offending. The prestidigitator calls special attention to one hand while he works the trick with the other. His apprehensions were not altogether groundless. Professor Haeckel was braver, or more rash, when he styled the “Descent of Man” as “anti-Genesis” ; with equal truth and moderation he might have added, anti-John, anti- Hebrews and anti-Christ. The point to pierce the business and bosoms of men is a denial of the integrity and reliability of the Word of God. We cannot depend on the Bible to show us “how to go to heaven” if it misleads us as to “how the heavens go” regarding the origin, nature, descent and destiny of brutes and men. Darwinists have been digging at the foundations of society and souls; and their powers of endurance are a matter of some moment. We venture to differentiate life and if we go too far are sure to be corrected: 1. Vegetable life is the sum of the forces which pervade the organism, causes it to grow and preserves it from decay. 2. Brute life is the sum of the forces which pervade the organism, causes it to grow, preserves it from decay, is conscious and thinks. 3. Human life is the sum of the forces which pervade the organism, causes it to grow, preserves it from decay, is conscious, thinks and is religious.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker