ficially looks something like a mouse— is no problem at all for Professor Wil liam Howells of Harvard University. He says, “We can plainly see that a tree shrew is a hairy, four-footed, air- breathing, warm-blooded,, live-bearing, tree-going fish.” Some scientists have become rather poetic as does Professor Loren Eiseley of the University of Pennsylvania con cerning our evolution from the fish. He says, “It gives me a feeling of con fidence to see nature still busy with experiments, still dynamic, and neither through nor satisfied because a Devo nian fish managed to end as a two- legged character with a straw hat.” Deriving us from still lower forms he becomes eloquent as he refers to one of man’s great achievements, the 200-inch telescope on Mount Palomar. “A bil lion years have gone into the making of that eye; the water and the salt and the vapors of the sun have built it; things that squirmed in the tide silts have devised it.” Scientists criticize Christians as ap pealing to emotions instead of looking at facts objectively. One hesitates to say that according to the theory of evolu tion we evolved from monkeys, because the scientists have produced an emo tional reaction to this statement, and the reaction is that only an ignorant person would make such a statement. In spite of statements to the contrary, outstanding scientists do say that we evolved from apes, and from monkeys. And furthermore, in spite of statements to the contrary, Darwin did believe this also, because he said so in his book The Descent of Man. A generation ago evolutionists said that although there is no doubt about the fact of evolution, it is not known how it came about. One does not hear this any more, and the books tell us that evolution came about through mutations and natural selection. Na tural selection was proposed by Darwin over a hundred years ago. When it was criticized, he largely replaced it with a theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, although previously he
had strenuously opposed this theory. The mutation theory was proposed by Hugo De Vries in 1901. While there are difficulties in this theory it is ac cepted because there is nothing better and nothing better is now expected. Thus both these theories of evolution were well known at a time when it was admitted that the mechanism of evo lution was still unknown. Now they are said to explain the process of evolu tion Most unfortunately, a number of men of science, who have reputations as conservative Christians, have been writing books and articles for the Christian public which confuse the issue more than it was before. This takes two forms. One is informing Christians that they cannot avoid be lieving a certain amount of evolution because of the way the word evolution is now defined. Practically any heredi tary change is said to represent evolu tion going on before our eyes. The other is compromising with real evolu tion, by saying that the term “kind” in the first chapter of Genesis may in clude animals which are very different from each other, and that there is no Scriptural difficulty in deriving us from South African “ ape-men.” The central theme of Scripture is the plan of redemption of man through the atoning, vicarious sacrifice of Christ for our sins. If evolution is true, there was no historical fall of man. If there was no historical fall of man there is no need of a Redeemer. If there is no need of a Redeemer, Christ was a martyr and is not the Saviour. This is why the matter of evolution is such an important issue. There is need for a clear exposition of the facts, so that those who are in doubt may be able to discern and remain faithful. We cannot convince an evolutionist by arguing with him. A knowledge of some of the facts may be helpful in dealing with one who is seeking and the Holy Spirit will convince one who is yielded. 23
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker