We Believe
Evolution
Bolton Davidheiser, Ph.D. Professor of Science
M any C h ristian s hold, in error, the view that scientists are giving up their belief in the theory of Evolution. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Let us consider a few examples of this fact. About five years ago, Professor H. J. Muller, a great genetist and winner of the Nobel Prize, urged that the idea of evolution be made an integral and fundamental part of the American way of thinking. And that it be taught in the grade schools and high schools. Professor Theodosius Dobzhansky, another genetist of note, speaks for many present day scientists in these words, “It would seem that in our day an anti-evolutionist must, of necessity, be either ignorant of the evidence or incapable of sound reasoning.” A few years ago a professor of the University of Hawaii published a paper in “Science” the journal of the Ameri can Association for the Advancement of Science, in which he started out with the words, “Each of us is for good and against evil.” He then said that “ the evil against which science teach ers stand is teleology.” Now teleology is the concept of design and purpose in nature. If there is no design in na ture, it follows that there is no Design er.' To oppose the idea of design in nature is to deny God. In the first chapter of Romans it is pointed out that God is manifest in the wonders of creation. We quote to this profes sor from Isaiah, “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil.” Christians may not be aware that in
many schools much pressure is put upon the student who does not accept the theory of evolution as a fact, and his grades may suffer for it if he re fuses to compromise. Some schools will not admit a student if it is known that he does not accept evolution as true. Since the scientists take the attitude that evolution is a proven fact, and since the general public has been won, at least, to a point where opposition has ceased, the evolutionists glibly pass over difficulties and make sweeping generalizations without fear of contra diction. George Gaylord Simpson, the emi nent paleontologist, now of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University—dis cussing the evolution of the horses from their alleged ancestors—lists all the possible ways it could have hap pened. One hypothesis is that a pair of condylarths “ suddenly gave birth to a litter of Dawn Horses.” This would be something like a pair of cats hav ing a litter of pups. Professor Simpson says that this is so improbable as to be unacceptable unless there is no more likely explanation. He finds a better explanation in the theory that the evo lution occurred at a place which is now beneath the waters of the ocean where the evidence is inaccessible to the hun ter of fossils. The important point is that something which is extremely un likely will be accepted by the evolu tionist if he cannot think of something better. The transition from a fish to a tree shrew—a small animal which super- 22
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker