September 1925
TH E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
382
1
C o n t r i b u t e d A r t i c l e s WmâÊËÊ .
■
] ■
fi
* " A n o th e r O ppon en t of Special C re a t io n AN ANALYSIS OP II1S ARGUMENTS ,___ By Leander S. Keyser, A. M., D. D., Hamma Divinity School, Springfield, Ohio It is always a pleasure to p resen t The K ing’s Business Fam ily w ith an article from th e pen of Dr. Keyser, th a t valian t Defender of th e F aith , who always shoots stra ig h t and h its th e m ark. H MILITANT evolutionist, who has recently come somewhat to the fore, is Dr. Edward L. Rice, Professor of Zoology in Ohio Wesleyan University — a school th a t was founded hy the Methodist them— all in a row, ending w ith the modern man. Does such an origin and evolution of man give you “ enlarged” views of God? How infinitely below th e doctrine of special creation in the divine image! . Theistic Evolution
Church in th e days when th a t denom ination was thoroughly evangelical and when th e fath ers toiled and sacrificed to found it in order th a t th e ir children m ight have academic train in g according to th e stand ard s and faith of th eir church. Dr. Rice recently published an article in “Christian W ork” (New Y ork), a well-known liberalistic jou rn al th a t p rin ts something underm ining to the evangelical faith in almost every issue. In introducing the author, th e editor says of him : “He here presents succinctly and persuasively the case for evolu tion from th e standpoint of one whose faith in God is not shaken bu t ra th e r enlarged by th a t explanation.” To th is statem en t we must object. The argum ents are not “ persuasively” presented. They are th e same old m aterial, th e 's am e methods of presentation, the same speculations and the same, non-sequiturs. The au tho r him self adm its in several places th a t the doctrine of creation would also explain all the facts. Well, then, th a t very adm ission should prevent evolutionists from presenting th e ir doctrines in the dogmatic way as if they were actually demonstrated. is th e Evolutionary" Theory Uplifting? Moreover; we fail to see why evolution should give any man an “ enlarged” conception of God. W hat is th e re about the doctrine th a t God brought man up th rough the beasts of the forests and jungle by means of th e fierce and bloody struggle for existence th a t would give us “ enlarged” faith in God and His ways? W hat is it th a t is so uplifting about such a doctrine? Compare it w ith th e Biblical teaching th a t God created man directly in His own sim ilitude, made him a rational, sentient, moral and sp iritu al being a t the sta rt, and placed him in a garden, so th a t he m ight have a fair chance for his moral development and sp iritu al life. Does not th is la tte r view give us a larg er and higher con ception of God, His reasonableness, His love, His justice? F o r example, Van Loon (ano ther m ilitan t evolutionist) says th a t it “took m an’s ancestor’s about a m illion years to learn to walk on th e ir hind legs,” meaning th at, prior to th a t exploit, they were animals going about on all-fours! Sup pose God did it th a t way— does it “ enlarge” our respect for Him? Wells, Conklin, Osborn, Gregory, Kellogg, and the “ Hall of Man” in the American Museum of Science— all represent prim itive man as a very b ru tal and ferocious being. According to th e ir pictures, he looks very much like the baboon and gorilla. He is even placed side by side w ith
Let us note some things said by Dr. Rice, th is professor in a Christian university. H e/says th a t th e theistic evolu tion ist sees “ in the first chapter of Genesis an inspired poetic statem en t of God’s creative power; bu t no in e rran t text-book of science.” As is invariably the case, our evolutionist shoves the Bible to one side to make way for his theory. We have never yet found an exception to th is ru le: the Bible is never accepted at its honest face value by th e purveyors of evolu tion. It is always trea ted as if it has said things it does not mean, or made many e rra n t statem ents in its cos mogony. It contains only th e “ideas, of the Hebrews.” It is not a rea l historical narrative. So all evolutionists hold. We challenge any one to point out an exception. Our au tho r regards the first chapter of th e Bible as a “ poetic statem en t.” We must deny this. It is no t poetry; it is smooth and beautiful prose. More th an th at, the very style of it indicates th a t th e w riter m eant it to be accepted as literal history. Poetry may be fiction; history purports to tell the tru th , and to tell it w ithout the disguise of decorative draperies. Such is th e style of the original Hebrew .jn which the first chapter of the Bible was w ritten. Dr. R ice'Says th a t the first chapter of Genesis is “ no in e rran t text-book of science.’I. If it is not “ in e rra n t,” then it musji be erran t. W hat confidence can then be placed in it as a divinely inspired work? T h at would make God directly a fallible being or else one who intentionally deceives His people. Does any one hold, however, th a t Genesis was intended for a “ text-book of science” ? No one does! That is merely a caricature, after th e m anner of the modernists, of the position of the conservatives— a veritable man of straw . The Bible is not a text-book of science, and no one has eVer said it was; but, being a divinely inspired book, when it touches upon the subject of n atu ra l science, it must tell the tru th . If it blunders or deceives regarding n atu ra l things, how can it be tru sted when it tells us about higher m atters — those of ethical and sp iritu al reality. Surely the God who “ created the heavens and th e e a rth ” (Gen. 1 :1 ) ought to know how He brought vegetables, animals and man into being. It is a strang e h iatus in logical thinking to suppose th a t God would have pu t the n arrativ e, of the creation of the world into poetic and fictional form.
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs