\ aS Ko igs ee . MWA: CQ RAN \ \ \ SAN SN Ys \\ hy N \ ACK \ : AN A « ~~ NY ti Z Zi tj; Yi tj YS ZZ ae we SLI Z o LE LZ , 0, Z LE tj. MES, Le ri, ay Oe i Th IM Ng We cote ; aie ee : AS Wt Rag he te a bie Lora) " ¥ CAN AN EVOLUTIONIST BE A CHRISTIAN? Can an Evolutionist be a Christian? by yi Y, W. Lee Rector, A. M. Professor of Psychology Oklahoma Baptist University 1926 THE STRATFORD COMPANY, Publishers Boston, MAssacHUSETTS Copyright, 1926 The STRATFORD CO., Publishers Boston, Mass. Printed in the United States of America TO The helpmate, unselfing and sharing, Inspiring and caring, The mother of our son, This volume is gratefully dedicated. Preface HE race persistently enquires after the meaning of existences. It universally seeks to account for the presence of forms and forces, and constantly at- tempts to evaluate them. Roughly speaking, all philo- sophie explanations are made either in terms of natural law or in terms of Infinite Life. These procedures un- questionably represent present-day avenues of approach to philosophic studies. Naturalists, Organic evolutionists, champion the first method of interpretation and orthodox Christians cham- pion the second. The one seeks to explain all existences and co-existences in terms of natural law. The other seeks to explain them in terms of Infinite Life. As a result of the prevalence of these two methods of inter- pretation, an all-important issue obtains to-day; namely, naturalism versus supernaturalism. By virtue of its nature and its infiuence, Organic evolution has a very important bearing upon this present-day issue. Since Organic evolution postulates the dominion of natural law, it becomes at once a bone of contention. Although the conflict centers around the Organic evolutionary hypothesis, readers should ever remember that the issue is not, philosophically speaking, an evolutionary one. It is naturalism versus supernaturalism. Concerning the principles actuating these schools of thought, the author aims to define fundamental ones and in turn correlate and evaluate them. He frankly admits the difficulties involved in such a role of detached think- 1 PREFACE ing, owing to the fact that mental states are seldom completely unified. Notwithstanding existing difficul- ties, he believes that clarity importunes the attempt. Upon deriving definitions, he shall, so far as ability will permit, apply rigidly the limitations and direction of logie. The author believes that the real significance of Or- ganic evolution cannot be had apart from adequate definition. To define it as development certainly misses the mark. No discerning individual doubts for a mo- ment that history discloses progress; or that life reveals meaningful changes. A comparative study of Organic evolution and devel- opment reveals marked differences. Organic evolution is simply an unrolling process. Development is both an imrolling and an unrolling one. Concerning this differ- ence in meaning, it is important to remember that the inrolling process must be antecedent to the unrolling one. In ignoring the wnrolling process, such evolution- ary philosophers deal only with half facts; hence, their conclusions would logically be faulty. In making a place both for an imrolling and an unrolling process, orthodox Christians, believers in development, deal with whole facts; hence, their conclusions would logically be true. A Some would claim that Organic evolution is not con- cerned about the inrolling process. Logically speaking, this is true. But Organic evolutionists, being human, are not content to stop at a method of natural behavior. They regularly seek to intrepret the universe as they see it. To do so rightfully, however, forces a considera- tion of both causes and effects, since true science main- il PREFACE tains that there must be an adequate cause for every effect. To insist on dealing with effects only is to in- sist upon dealing with half truths. To understand the facts of life, it is just as necessary to understand the imrolling process as it is to understand the wnrolling one. Hence, any adequate interpretation of existences de- mands that individuals take cognizance both of causes and effects. A eareful study of Organic evolution and a candid survey of its influence, forces the conclusion that it is an egoistic doctrine; that it logically encourages misun- derstandings and social conflict; and that it inescap- ably limits the function of supernaturalism. Such a role is obviously unsocial and unchristian. To empha- size selfishness means the encouragement of strife. To discountenance supernaturalism means the turning of the race unto itself for deliverance and succor. Human history shows that self-help as a principle of egoistic be- havior leads inevitably to individual and social chaos. The ideal-social well-being of the race obligates man- kind to search diligently after facts; to evaluate them in terms of actual existences rather than in terms of opinions; and to incorporate them into a philosophy of life comprehensive enough to admit an eternity of truth. The tendency of many modern scientists to force all facts into the evolutionary category in order to give them rational explanation is a flagrant violation of sci- entific procedure and is, of course, reprehensible both in theory and practice. Concerning the application of a few terms in this volume, the following should be noted. Self as used in lil PREFACE Chapter I usually refers to the ego. Altrwism as a rule refers to the alter-ego. Unselfishness as used involves more than altruism; it comprehends not only altruism but the re-motivation of regeneration. Searchlight of omniscience refers to the Holy Bible. Species refer to definite kinds of life, limited in their behavior to defi- nite kinds of law. Character changes in species do not mean the production of new species; they mean simply the modification of the old species. To illustrate, the loss of sight by fish in the Mammoth Cave does not mean the production of a new specie; it means simply, blind fish. Again, hornless cattle are no less cattle because they have lost their horns. Transmutations refer to one specie, under the urge of natural law, passing over into another, and then into another, and so on. To illustrate, a fish becoming a man would be a good example. WNat- uralists and natwralism refer in general to all people in all the ages who idealize nature and philosophize on na- ture’s laws, and they refer in particular to all present- day Organic evolutionists and their natural philosophy. The latter reference predominates in the use of the ma- terial of this manuscript. Finally, italicized terms are the work of the author. The last chapter is a kind of résumé of the whole prob- lem of the book. It discloses naturalism and super- naturalism as irreconcilable systems of thought. It shows that the regnance of both among men necessarily provokes conflict. It prophesies that ultimately a de- cisive battle must be fought, and it concludes that Or- ganic evolution is essentially unchristian in nature and function. iV PREFACE The author wishes to acknowledge his debt to many modern thinkers and numerous friends for materials and suggestions gleaned from them. W. Lee Rector. Contents CHAPTER Vill Preface . Selfishness God a Process or a Person Import of Organic Evolution Defects of Theistic Evolution Passing of Christian Doctrine Finite Versus the Infinite Christ a Fact or Fancy . All-but-Boneless Men World’s Greatest Tenereanice Law Versus Life PAGE . 114 eho . 151 . 180 . 206 vo 4 SW thin Vip a ‘ it cat ’ ee Pry Wg Ute CK, a CHAPTER I Selfishness UMAN nature is potentially a duplex in which two determiners of conduct reside. The one, the ego, motivates selfward activities and creates egoistic situa- tions. The other, the alter-ego, motivates otherward activities and creates altruistic environments. Human experience is really a process of translating these gifts into actualities. The translation of the potential into the actual involves the stimulation of two eternities. The one environs the race with egoism and stimulates selfish behavior. The other environs mankind with altruism and stimulates unselfish activity. The one evokes egoistic selves. The other evokes altruistic per- sonalities. If the first obtains over the second, then human behavior predominates in selfish tones. If the second prevails over the first, then human activities predominate in unselfish aspects. It is thus seen that each subjective determiner of human conduct has its own objective complement. Any comprehensive interpreta- tion of the facts of human experience must take cogni- zance of both. To ascertain which determiner and complementary eternity plays the larger role in human experience, it would be necessary to review in detail the historical and typical activities of the race. The purpose of this study, however, is not to compare the two but to trace the role of the ego in mundane activities. A survey of human experience, while revealing many [1] Can An Evottrionist Be A Curistian? good forces operating, discloses egoistic agents and situ- ations evilly environing mankind. It reveals a regnance of egoistic stimuli, a rule of egoistic urges, and a wanton expenditure of energy upon the present. In short, the survey discloses self-centered, conscienceless, blind, and vindictive men and women environed by the emanations of selfishness. Now, with egoistic nature and nurture in complementary and compensating roles, there is little wonder that self often assumes an unsocial and destruc- tive role. One school of thinkers, protesting the above appraisal of human behavior, asks, ‘‘Why eriticize the race for making a program in terms of the present? Why object to an individual living for himself? Is not self-preserva- tion the first law of nature?’’ Concerning these questions, much may be said. Granting ideal-social guidance, it is readily admitted that a degree of one’s egoistic desires should be gratified. The thoughtful, however, certainly know that the gratifi- cation of all selfish desires would manifestly produce nothing short of unvarnished or careful selfishness. A study of the influence of egoism upon the life of the race, and an analysis of its functions in the lives of in- dividuals and groups, forces the conclusion that selfish- ness 1s self-destroying. Reasons for this universal and undying tragedy are disclosed in the natural leadings of the ego. Self-ward activities are short-seeing, impover- ishing, and defeating. Selfishness Is Self-Destroying In the first place, selfishness 1s short-seeing. The sel- fish, through self-approval, unwittingly enshroud them- [2] SELFISHNESS selves with their own opinions and begirt themselves with their own individualistic notions. Such completely circumscribe themselves with their own mentations. Being so environed, their visions are abridged and their outlooks are obscured. Thus, self is ever limned against the horizon of the egoist’s perspective. Self sees self, approves self, and lives for self only. To such beings, the illimitable reaches of altruism and worth are ever unobservable. In the second place, selfishness 1s impoverishing. The selfish, through self-approval, throw up mental walls against the invasion of unselfish ideals. They conse- quently walk only in the light of their own counsel and yield only to the mandates of their own consciences. Now, the role of consciences whose every aspiration and act and whose every will and judgment outlaw unselfish- ness and reject altruism as mere sentimentalism, robs the owners of the ideational food necessary for moral and spiritual fatness, and eventually causes them to be- come morally and spiritually lean. All eternity discloses no real virtue that is not but- tressed with altruism and goodness. Altruism and good- ness are inseparable moral graces. Unless approved ideas induce unselfish conduct, they lack every element of real virtue. Character is enriched only as the indi- vidual approvingly responds to the stimulation of un- selfish ideals or situations, and in turn reduces his unselfish ideals to the conditions of every day use. Thus, riches of character 1s unselfishness. The race, therefore, lays up moral wealth only as it lives and gives. Con- versely, character is impoverished only as the individual disapprovingly responds to the stimulation of unselfish [3] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? ideals or situations, and in turn reduces his own selfish ideals to the conditions of every day use. Thus, poverty of character is selfishness. The race, therefore, robs itself of moral wealth only as tt lives to get. Thus, energy predominantly expended upon self robs the indi- vidual of needed virtue and emasculates him of needed worth. Selfishness 1s morally and spiritually wmpover- ishing. In the third place, selfishness 1s defeating. The selfish, through self-approval, reject the unselfish bequests of the ages, repudiate the idealism of immediate forbears, and scoff at the limitations of altruism. Such people, in yielding to the urges and stimulation of egoism, build lfe’s programs around self-interest. Activities thus actuated are ethically meritless. Hence, self-ser- vice, as a principle of behavior, must be universally unworthy. Fundamentally, then, moral victories are conditioned upon self-forgetting and moral tragedies upon self-getting. . To multiply self-forgetting is to strengthen moral character and to multiply self-getting is to weaken moral character. Self-forgetting tends to liberate and release, and self-getting tends to create man- acles, forge shackles, and fashion tentacles for men and institutions. Self-getting ws thus wrong-becoming; hence, self-getting is self-defeating. Now, if selfishness obscures the visions of individuals ; if it shuts out the stimulation of unselfish idealism; if it spends energy upon self and the present; and if it envelops human beings in a mist and fog of egoistic opinions, then the race, in yielding to its urge and stimu- lation, obviously destroys itself in such reactions. [4] SELFISHNESS Attempts to realize self-satisfaction are universally wasteful and destructive. Two meaningful concepts emerge from these facts. First, the character of the individual waxes in worthful- ness just in proportion as he treads the pathways of un- selfishness. Second, the character of the individual wanes in worthfulness just in proportion as he treads the pathways of selfishness. As a further explanation of these principles, it is pertinent to note that the out- flowing life is the infilling life, the individual gains only as he loses; and that the infilling life is the out- flowing life, the individual loses only as he gains. It is well to remember that these principles of behavior are equally applicable to the group. Selfishness Is Race-Fettering An empiric view of human history attests the conclu- sion that selfishness is paradoxical. It is eternally dy- ing, yet immortal. The more it dies, the more it lives, and the more it lives, the more it destroys. Now, to understand this paradox, it should be re- membered that selfishness is not an individual act, nor a series of acts, but it is a subjective state, or a principle of behavior which urges the individual into egoistic activities, Such a principle ultimately vitiates indi- vidual activities and negates human progress. Human experience universally discloses the selfish in destructive roles. History shows that the race has ever been pitted against itself. It reveals man pitted against man, family against family, clan against clan, phraty against phraty, tribe against tribe, city state against city state, nations against nations, and leagues [5] Can An Evoxutionist Br A CHristiaAn? of nations against leagues of nations. Humanity has ever engaged in its own destruction. Death and deviltry have ever run riot. Desolating harvests have ever been produced in the soil of human selfishness. Out of the matrix of selfishness all struggles and deaths have come. Herein, the death-dealing roles of despots, absolutists, and imperialists find adequate explanation. Selfishness alone produces death-dealing despots. Indulgence of egoism inflates the human mind and dwarfs the human heart. Under the gratification of selfish impulses, the cravings of individuals become in- satiate; hence, despots resort to oppression, repression, and suppression to satisfy their unhallowed desires. Thus, peace-time populace is but chattel for inhuman barter, and war-time populace is but ‘‘cannon fodder’’ for conscienceless war lords. Despotism lives upon death! The tragedy, however, increases. The death nourish- ment for the unwary becomes the destroyer of the des- pots. History shows that ultimately the enslaver is enslaved; the destroyer is destroyed; and ‘‘the expro- priator is expropriated.’’ What means this? The answer is, the law of the harvest is inexorable. Death- dealing despots die of their own daggers. Selfishness alone produces death-dealing absolutists. The analogy between the despot and the absolutist is rather complete. Both are egoistic and selfish. Both think and act in terms of an enlarged self. Both are mentally inflated and spiritually dwarfed. Both pro- ject programs for selfish aggrandizement. Both create implements of war to enforce and guarantee selfish aspirations. Both hoot at the idea of war machines [6] SELFISHNESS being boomerangs. And both dispatch human lives with- out conscience or scruples. Evidence for these conclusions is abundant. Accord- ing to newspaper dispatches, Nicholas II of Russia caused a whole troop of his soldiery to be shot down be- cause it protested against his plans for a war against Japan. The day following this tragedy he caused mothers, sisters, and sweethearts, who were searching out their dead among the slaughtered soldiers, to be shot down on the same spot. By ruthlessness he overawed and secured obedience. But, nature collects her bills. In 1916 the heartless monarch who had slain by the sword was felled by the sword. According to history, Belgians winked at their ruler’s entrance into the African Congo region. They witnessed Leopold II invade a sovereign state and beheld him mal- treat and mangle unlettered and unnumbered people in order to satisfy his avarice. The suffering of these Sudanese was almost indescribable. Nature, however, collects her bills. In 1914 the Belgians who had winked at the oppression of their ruler felt the iron heel of force return upon their own pates. They witnessed their own lands laid waste, their own cities razed to the ground, their own womanhood mutilated and ravished, their own manhood inoculated, and their own liberties all but destroyed. According to history, the Bourbons of France main- tained their thrones by oppression, repression, and suppression. By force they awed and cowed the masses. By force they perpetuated inequalities and exacted in- human tolls. On a whole, their reigns were marked by insolence and inhuman abuses. In 1789 a decisive re- [7] Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? action came. The third estate overthrew the Bourbon dynasty and then the pent-up emotions of the outraged masses found expression. The leaders threw discretion to the winds and massacred justice by lifting up the guillotine. Nature collects her bills. They that had slain by the sword died by the sword. History shows that absolutists have universally fallen by the sword. The fate of absolute governments of the past is a dark and inescapable reminder of this tragic fact. The death-dealing activities of absolutists foretell their own doom. Selfishness 1s self-destroying. Selfishness alone produces death-dealing 1mperwalists. Overwhelming desires for prestige, power, and posses- sions are ear-marks of imperialism. Grandiose schemes for enlargement naturally attend such inordinate de- sires. Imperialistic programs tend to pit nation against nation, or race against race. Attempts to attain world supremacy are the inevitable results of imperialistic aspirations. When imperialists reign, world conflicts obtain. Imperialistic programs have ever been antecedent to wars. The King George’s, King William’s, Queen Anne’s, French and Indian, Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and Spanish American War, all resulted from the conflicting urges of imperialistic aspirations. The World War was no exception to this rule. The existence of so many imperialistic programs made it in- evitable. Its ten million dead and one billion debt are conclusive reminders of late imperialistic folly. Selfishness Is Culture-W asting But has the race learned well its lesson? Present-day [8] SELFISHNESS weathervanes seem to indicate that the ways of carnality are immutable; or that self is an immortal nihilist. Another war impends. NO! No! says the Pacifist. The author, notwithstanding the Pacifist’s protest, importunes the reader to look well to present-day tend- encies. The race madly creates instruments for its own destruction. All nations eagerly multiply war machines. Actuated by self-interest, they now rush in where angels fear to tread. Present-day war machines are indeed very grave menaces to civilization. When the intelligence of the race is being consecrated to the task of creating instru- ments of death; when the energies of the race are being requisitioned for fratricidal purposes; and when the heart of the race is being bled white by its loveless urges, ‘Watchman, what of the night?’’ When the black race moves to restore the glory of its yesterdays; when the yellow race clamors for world control; and when the white race urges itself on toward world supremacy, ‘*Watchman, what of the night?’’ Think, will you! If the major movements of mankind disclose egoistic motwes, how is it possible to underwrite peace and pros- perity? Or how perpetuate the guarantees of civiliza- tion? Unless the nations of the earth front about, unless they leash their emotions and correct their think- ing, wholesale death is imminent. War machines im- poverish nations, destroy human lives, and play human motives down to the level of beasts. Surely, if present egoistic tendencies culminate, tomorrow will disclose the death of culture and the prostration of civilization. Why is the race so blind? Why risk the sacrifice of [9] Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? the accumulated wisdom of the ages? The answer to this question is: Blind and destructive conduct results from the urges of unbridled and uncurbed carnality. The carnal self is a death-dealing monarch. All carnal weapons are ‘‘boomerangs.’’ While such weapons are certain and sure in dispatching the enemy, they inevit- ably return to the destruction of the user. Out of imperialistic selfishness comes crushing debts, moral dearth, and race death. The race must awake to the fact that self-interest is a negation of progress; that absolutism is inimicable to peace and prosperity; that national imperialism is a precursor of destruction; that carnal weapons are all boomerangs; and that slavery and death are corollaries of selfishness. Earnest thinkers enquire: ‘‘Is there any hope for permanent peace, or escape from universal strife? If so, why has not the race hitherto attained such a utopia? How explain the present regnance of self-interest’’ The answer to the third question involves the first and sec- ond; hence, an elaboration of the first two will not be attempted here. Concerning this problem, one school of thinkers asserts that the present role of selfishness is largely an emo- tional aftermath of the World War. Such an explana- tion is too superficial to command respect and attention. Suffice it to say that the World War was primarily a product of selfishness rather than a cause of selfishness. It was an occasion of selfish expression, rather than a cause of selfishness. In response to the question above, another school main- tains that egoistic philosophies are productive of social [10] SELFISHNESS unrest and internecine strife. It asserts that Judgments develop slowly into philosophies; that philosophies ripen gradually into destiny-determining beliefs; and that destiny-determining beliefs carry over into actualities. Now, the discerning will admit that egoistic philosophies and beliefs are strife-provoking. Obviously, then, such philosophies and beliefs are antecedents to wars. The World War was manifestly a clash between ideals. In its initial, if not in its final stage, it was a death- grapple between egoistic philosophies. If self-ward philosophies are fundamentally casual in the production of war and strife, then, how account for the existence of race-troubling and race-destroying beliefs ? The second school insists that such beliefs are a direct product of selfish nature yielding to selfish nurture. These thinkers maintain that selfish nature gives birth to selfish nurture, and that out of the interactions of the two, the world’s ills regularly come. Now, no explanation for the existence of race-troubling and race-destroying beliefs is complete which does not include the learning process. To be exact, people believe what they believe because they are taught what they are taught. Accordingly, philosophies and beliefs are prod- ucts of the teaching process. Thus, teachers become the out-standing evil-doers of every age. Why should teachers be purveyors of selfishness? Why should they shoulder so much responsibility for present-day chaos? Two fundamental reasons are obvious: First, the teacher is essentially selfish by nature and consequently yields naturally to egoistic urges and stimulation. Second, the teacher is essentially selfish by training and consequently yields habitually to ego- [11] Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? istic motives and stimulation. Through experience such nature and nurture could do nothing less than develop egoistic or self-centered individuals. Self-ward thinking is a unwersal criterion of selfish- ness. Selfishness looks within instead of without, at the present instead of the future, at me instead of you. The number of teachers at this moment fashioning ego- istic philosophies for American youth is legion. These instructors of present-day youth laboriously and increas- ingly insist that the salvation of the race is in its own hands. That is, it must lift itself by its own bootstraps. Now, such teaching is obviously ethnocentric or selfish. When teachers turn the mind of man unto himself, they maximize race ego. Any teaching which causes man to think for, around, and unto himself lays the foundation for individual and race destruction. Selfishness is thus antecedent to death. Evolution Is Race-Centering Does present-day teaching encourage people to gratify selfish desires? Does the learning process tend to en- courage self-ward activities? Any thoughtful analysis of present-day movements unquestionably discloses the regnance of selfishness. Unpleasant though the thought may be, the teacher’s responsibility for much of the present-day turmoil is undeniable. Is there a causal relationship existing between present- day tendencies and Organic evolutionary teaching? Does the doctrine of Organic evolution encourage selfish- ness? The meaning of this doctrine ought to reveal the answer. Organic evolution as a hypothetical principle of be- [12] SELFISHNESS havior is professedly a natural process. It is nature un- folding according to law. It is, hamanly speaking, man using his natural gifts to hft himself. In short, it is self help. Thus, Organic evolutionary teaching would foster race egoism. The task of the present-day teacher is manifestly an environing one. If he were an Organic evolutionist, then his ideals would tend to be egoistic. If his ideals were egoistic, then he would tend to environ pupils with selfishness. The learner responding to such situations would obviously build up selfish habits. Habits as in- dices of character are in reality weathervanes pointing out either human weakness or human worth. Furthermore, if Organic evolutionary teachings tend to be egoistic, then the learning process would tend to hinder progress. Jt should ever be remembered that progress is not material prestige, position, or power, but it is essentially the rule of stability, happiness, and good will. Progress is the product of love impulses. But selfishness hinders love. In its last analysis, selfishness is an absolute negation of love. Love lives on give. Selfishness lives on get. The one is unselfing and the other is selfing. Thus, in hindering co-operation, selfish- ness tends to prevent progress. Egoism, whether individual or race, is inimicable to social well-being. Out of selfishness flows streams of lust, avarice, hate, war, and famine. Out of it flows rivers of doubt, disease, dearth, debt, and death. Organic evolutionary teaching logically turns man’s thought with added interest and strength unto himself. Thus, evolution, by encouraging selfishness, would in- crease the streams of human lust, avarice, hate, war, and [13] Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? famine, and would swell the rivers of doubt, disease, dearth, debt, and death. Under such evolutionary teaching, the selfish becomes more selfish, the destroyer more destructive, and the seducer more seductive. The role of Organic evolution is thus a lamentable and de- structive one. If by means of its influence, the messages of our yesterdays are universally belittled, the philoso- phies of our past are ruthlessly frayed and frazzled, and the moorings of our civilization are wantonly cut, then the normal role of Organic evolution is inconoclastic. Under its influence, self becomes a greater nihilist. According to the meaning of Organic evolution, its influence would obviously encourage egoism. It chal- lenges the race to help itself. The race naturally tends to accept the challenge. Moreover, it tends to accept the challenge literally. The average man, if told to help himself, will do so. As a rule, self-help needs no extra encouragement. According to the self-help ideal, Organic evolution importunes the home to help itself. It logically pleads with each family to discover the laws of nature, to adjust its conduct to their guidance, and then, to help itself. It importunes the school to help itself. It logically pleads with the school to look well to nature’s develop- ment, to guide the child according to natural law, to educate it in harmony with its own nature, and then, to help itself. It importunes business to help itself. It logically pleads with business to search out the productive laws of the universe, to harness the forces of nature, to adjust activities to the principles found therein, and then, to [14] SELFISHNESS help itself. Its importunity is really, ‘‘Go and get. Be sure and get.’’ It importunes the state to help itself. It logically pleads with the state to lean not upon others, to trust only the resident capacity of its constituency, to adjust its activities to natural law, and then, to help itself. Finally, it importunes the religionist to help himself. It logically pleads with the worshipper to trust not a supernatural being, to accept not divine fiats, but to live according to the mandates of natural law, and then, to help himself. The logic of these conclusions is aptly revealed in Positivism. Positivism is a naturalistic religion. Its founder, Auguste Comte, dared to accept fully the logic of the Organic evolutionary hypothesis and, in turn, set forth a system of worship based upon it. According to his teaching, humanity is God. Sin is failure to become human. Salvation is becoming human. And immor- tality is living in one’s influence after death. Thus, it is seen that Auguste Comte centers salvation in the race. Positivism is the race trying to save itself through wor- shipping itself. Some of America’s greatest educators do great vio- lence to logic, when they seek to make Organic evolution contain the concept of objective immortality. Immor- tality implies other-worldly existence of personality after its earthly life. Organic evolution, being simply a this- worldly doctrine, is subjective; that is, it assumes only the continuity or immortality of ideas. Christianity, being both a this-worldly and an other-worldly doctrine, is both subjective and objective. That is, it assumes the continuity or immortality, not only of ideas, but of [15] Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? personality as well. It is thus seen that Organic evolu- tion, in denying objective immortality, shuts the race up to itself. Therefore, such evolutionary teaching tends to be race-centering. To conclude, both logic and experience indict Organic evolution as being an egoistic doctrine. Granting this indictment to be true, it follows that an application of the principles of Organic evolution would encourage self- destruction, race fetters, and cultural death. Its role would manifestly be unsocial and anti-benevolent. The author, while accepting a meaningful function for natural law, believes that its role is inadequate to explain life’s processes, and that its functions must be intelligently and externally controlled. In short, he believes that a rational interpretation of the universe compels the recognition of an Infinite Personality, creat- ing, controlling, and crowning. Now, if a rational inter- pretation of the universe is grounded in personality, then nature’s law becomes the gift of an intelligent mind. Therefore, intelligent guidance logically supplants the accidental variations of natural selection. Law, the creature, becomes subject to the person, the Creator. Now, if this conclusion is granted, supernaturalism be- comes an inevitable fact in the life of the race. In the last analysis, personality alone creates, controls, and crowns. Finally, the author believes that real knowledge and wisdom, moral strength and integrity are inadequately provided for by the functions of natural law and that true character can only be guaranteed by the person and principles of the Prince of Peace. Subsequent chapters of this book will attempt to show [16] SELFISHNESS that naturalism is ultimately impotent; that a rational interpretation of the universe must be grounded in per- sonality; that Organic evolution outlaws supernatural- — ism, the deity of Christ, and orthodox Christian doc- trine ; that Organic evolutionary science is founded upon supposition, inference, and guesses; that it is an irra- tional attempt to explain animate and inanimate forms; that it greatly errs in its attempt to substitute the rule of Homo-Sapiens for the rule of Homo-Christus; that the world’s greatest need is the dominion of an Infinite Personality; that Christ, the God-man, outlawed by Organic evolution, is the central, supreme, and superla- tive fact of the ages; that a decisive conflict between Organic evolutionists and supernaturalists is inevitable; and finally, that orthodox Christians must renew their allegiance to their Master and burnish their weapons for service, or else witness the program of the Son of Righteousness pass into disrepute among the sons of men. [17] CHAPTER II God a Process or a Person RGANIC evolution, as shall later be seen, logically outlaws the idea of a personal God. It assumes that law is the first and final cause of all things which are. It further assumes that the existence of a Trans- cendent Personality outside of and influencing nature’s processes would be a source of interference. Such assumptions naturally lead Organic evolutionists to attribute to natural law the determining role in the development of the physical and mental factors of the universe. In the light of these assumptions, the God of Organic evolution is but a natural process. Accordingly, all of the forms, forces, and functions of the universe are God. In contrast with this position, orthodox Christians assume that God is a person. Accordingly, all of the forms, forces, and functions of the universe are mani- festations of an Infinite Personality. The one asserts that a rational interpretation of the universe cannot be had apart from the undisturbed functions of natural law. The other asserts that a rational interpretation of the universe cannot be given apart from the fact of a planful and functional Personality. Relative to these assumptions, two all-important prob- lems appear for the consideration of earnest enquirers; namely, (1) Is God simply a natural process? or (2) Is God an Infinite Personality? Correlative with these [18] Gop A Procsss orn A PERSON questions are two subordinate ones; namely, (1) Can a natural process satisfactorily explain all the forms, forces, and functions of the universe? or (2) Must an Infinite Personality be requisitioned to explain them? The answers to the last two questions provide the an- swers to the first two. In rejecting a natural process as inadequate to satis- factorily explain all of the phenomena of the universe, the author refutes it by discrediting natural selection. Lest some one think that natural selection has been given up by modern scientists, and accuse the author of creating a straw man just to knock him down, the author herewith submits a number of testimonials to show that the doctrine of natural selection dominates the thinking of the major scientists of this age. Davison, ‘‘ Practical Zoology,’’ 1906, quotes: ‘* “From lower to higher, From simple to complete, This is the pathway of eternal feet ; From earth to lichen, From herb to towering tree, From cell to creeping worm, From man to what shall be; This is the lesson of all time, This is the teaching of the voice sublime.’ ”’ Conklin, ‘‘The Evolution of Man,’’ 1922, says: ‘Unfortunately our knowledge of the causes of evolu- tion is not very complete, but the majority of biologists agree that inherited variations, or mutations, constitute the building materials of evolution, while natural selec- tion, or the elumination of the unfit, 1s the workman or architect that selects or rejects these materials. . . . The [19] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? fundamental principles in all kinds of evolution are similar and if mutations and new Mendelian combina- tions, but not fluctuations, are the materials of physical evolution, and natural selection is the builder, it is altogether probable that the same is true of intellectual and social evolution. ...If mutations are the ma- terials, natural selection is the architect and director of evolution, for although it does not originate fitness it continually eliminates the unfit and in the long run pre- serves only the fit. In certain quarters it has been fashionable of late to decry the importance of natural selection, but more and more, biologists are coming to recognize that it is the most important directing and perfecting factor in evolution. .. . Natwral selection in its widest meaning involves not merely the over-produc- tion of individuals and the consequent struggle for ex- istence with elimination of the unfit, as Darwin formu- lated it, but it also includes the overproduction of many vital activities, such as motions and reactions, with the elimination of the unfit, as in the process known as ‘trial and error.’ Thus useful behavior is the residue left after useless responses are eliminated, and it is not necessary to hold with Darwin that fitness is always the result of the elimination of unfit persons. It is often the result of the elimination of unfit reactions. In short, natural selection is not only personal but also intra-personal.’’ Averill, ‘‘Elements of Educational Psychology,’’ 1924, says: ‘We cannot avoid the assumption, inasmuch as every person is possessed of substantially the same instinctive urges, that these represent very definite attempts on the part of Nature to equip her children with those funda- mental controls and adjustments of conduct which a long racial past has demonstrated to be of import- ance in the conquest of life... . As we stated above, valuable experiences which the unknown ages have [20] Gop A Procsss orn A PERSON brought into the life of the race are carefully preserved by Nature in the nervous system. Were this not the case, each succeeding generation must grope about in blind trial and error for guideposts and stepping-stones by which to regulate behavior. Nature 1s, however, too zealous for the ultwmate rise and progression of her chil- dren to leave it all to chance. Inke a good antiquarian she casts about for whatever mementos of the past are worth preserving, and stores them carefully away in her infallible storehouse, the neurone; within its fast- nesses are the faint and often undecipherable memorials of a mighty and primitive age wherein the urge of rest- less activity, necessitous but exhilarating change, zeal- ous amassing and anxious possessing, wild approbation and tyrannical mastery, paralyzing foreboding and eager eurlosity—along with numerous other primal impulsions —meant survival and comfort for the individual and his group. What wonder, in the ight thrown upon them by these racial origins and evolutions, that the innate ten- dencies of Nature’s child—inevitable ontogenetic product of cumulative ages of phyletic accretions—are found by every teacher and every parent to be strong and insa- tiable! * * * Only a small portion of the child’s original nature is apparent in infancy. Nature holds in reserve much for later stages, revealing at first only such inner impulsions as can find expression and_ satisfaction through the present sharply restricted possibilities of the organism. * * * As the horizon is pushed out further and still further from the immediate self, new interests come in to hold sway over the evolving child. The in- stincts of the herd make their appearance near the be- ginning of pubescence, accompanied by those of keen rivalry, teasing, ownership, ete. Tardiest of all is the sex urge, faint primordial rumblings of which are felt in earliest childhood, but the full power of which does not manifest itself until the period of adolescence is well entered upon. Thus Nature does not turn the whole force of the racial past into the sluiceways of life at one [21] Oan An Evoxuttionist Br A CHristIan ? flood tide; rather, many tides are repeatedly freaghted with it, one bearing in its burden only to ebb gradually and be followed presently by another until at length, after the organism has been properly made ready, the gates are swung wide and the great trust of Nature has been discharged.’’ J. Arthur Thomson, ‘‘Concerning Evolution,’’ 1925, breaks with Bateson, and contends that natural selection increasingly commands the approval of scientists. He says: ‘“We do not share the view, often expressed in recent years, that Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection has be- come outworn. If mutations have been common through- out the evolution-process, if a new position of organic stability has often been reached suddenly, if the Pro- teus has frequently been leaping as well as creeping, then the burden that the theory of Natural Selection has had to bear will be less than Darwin believed; but even De Vries, one of the founders of the ‘Mutation-Theory,’ declares that sifting must still be regarded as essential. ‘The origin of new species, which is in part the effect of mutability, is, however, due mainly to natural selection. Mutability provides the new characters and new elemen- tary species. . Natural selections, on the other hand, decides what is to live and what is to die.’ * * * The fact is, we are returning to an appreciation of the subtlety of Darwin’s concept of selection. It is not one process, but many—lethal and reproductive, for instance; it operates in relation to an intricate web of life, and a Shibboleth may have survival value; there has been an evolution of sieves as well as of the material to be sifted. As we have seen, the struggle for existence, in the course of which selection occurs, includes not only competitive but symbiotic, not only egoistic but altruistic reactions, and both pay!’’ [22] Gop A Procsss or A PERson Bergen and, Davis, ‘‘Principles of Botany,’’ 1906, say: ‘“In the time of Linnaeus, who lived in the eighteenth century, almost all naturalists believed that the species or kinds of animals and plants had never changed in their characters during their long history on the earth. They believed that new kinds could only arise by special acts of creation. This doctrine of special creation gave way to the present belief in organic evolution, or the theory of descent, chiefly through the work of Charles Darwin, whose famous book, The Origin of Species, appeared in 1859. The theories of organic evolution hold that all the existing species of animals and plants have been derived or evolved through the geological ages from the simplest forms of life in the beginning.’’ Locy, ‘‘Biology and Its Makers,’’ 1908, quoting Weis- mann, says: ‘‘The conception of an evolution of life upon the earth reaches far beyond the bounds of any single science, and influences our whole realm of thought. It means nothing less than the elimination of the miraculous from our knowledge of nature, and the placing of the phenomena of life on the same plane as the other natural processes, as having been brought about by the same forces and being subject to the same laws.”’ Locy himself says: ‘“The intensive scrutiny to which different theories of organic evolution have been subjected, has served to focalize attention on various aspects of species forming. Natural selection stands forth as the agency to direct the general course of evolution after it is started, while as regards the beginnings, there are other important ques- tions as the causes of variability, that await further investigation. ”’ [23] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? LaRue, ‘‘Psychology for Teachers,’’ 1920, says: ‘‘Any animal that remains fixed to one spot, as the sponge does, has less need of an adaptive system than does one that undertakes to guide itself freely about its environment and find its food. Such a creature, without sense organs, would bump into its surroundings and flounder into danger on every hand, to say nothing of missing many a good meal. Nature’s way of meeting this emergency is to develop around the bumping spots and the food-finding end of the animal, cells sensitive enough to receive impressions from the environment, in other words, nerve cells. These nerve cells enable it to get advance news of whatever is about, flee the bad and seek the good.’’ Gates, ‘‘ Psychology for Students of Education,’’ 1923, says: ‘Just as the human eye has a long evolutionary his- tory, going back to the simple pigmented cells of the jellyfish, so forms of behavior, such as ‘withdrawing re- actions,’ have evolved from lower organisms. Most profitable, of course, is the study of the higher forms of animals, our ape-like and other simian ancestry.’’ Pillsbury, ‘‘Education as the Psychologist Sees It,’’ 1925, says: ‘Instincts are the results of the inheritance of changes which the organism has undergone. They originated by chance and persist because they make the organism more likely to survive or to survive in greater numbers than were the other members of the race or species. * * * The problem of instinct is to determine how these particular sense organs chance to be connected with these muscles. The answer originally must go back to the unknown factors [24] Gop A Procsss orn A PERsonN in the evolutionary forces that work upon the individual. The biologist now insists that the environment does not directly produce any change in the organism, all it does is to select those organisms or those changes in organisms which happen to develop as a result of the at present unknown changes that take place in the individual in the course of development. If it chanced that an organ- ism was provided with a nervous system that drove him to acts that were dangerous—that led to his destruction —he would be killed; none of his kind would survive. If on the contrary, as hold for the most part, the acts that his nervous system compels him to make serve the needs of the organism, he will survive. The evolution of in- stincts must have been closely connected with the evolu- tion of the organism. * * * Metaphorically one may think of instincts as the result of a process of trial and error on the part of Nature, or of the physical causes that really constitute Nature. When the combination of internal conditions upon which inheritance depends chances to give rise to an organism with a nervous system of a type to make it respond in a way suited to its environment, it will live. When the responses that it must make bring it into serious conflict with its environment, it will die. In this way one may picture life as the reward of chancing to develop a nervous sys- tem that shall give rise to suitable instinctive responses to the environment in which the individual lives, and death as the punishment for developing a nervous sys- tem that makes necessary instinctive responses seriously unsuited to the environment. We need not consider the justice of rewarding or punishing for the outcome of conditions that cannot be helped, for ours is not a meta- phor. Suffice rt to indicate that as a result of the myriad chances of chemical combinations, and the long continued action of selection, we find the members of the present generation armed with a set of instinctive tendencies that adjust them reasonably well to the environment in which they live.’’ [25] Can An Evouutionist Bs A CHRISTIAN? The first four witnesses may be characterized as orthogenetic and the remainder as fortuitous evolution- ists. Both groups fall into the Organic category. Orthogenetic evolution personalizes nature by assum- ing the universe’s processes to be more or less intelligent ones. Fortuitous evolution impersonalizes nature by assuming the universe’s processes to be accidental ones. With the one, the universe’s changes are telic. With the other, they are accidental. With the one, nature selects intelligently. With the other, nature selects accidentally. Both classes, however, concur in some things. Both refuse to recognize a supernatural God. Both reject creation and revelation by divine fiat. Both assume that nature works through natural law. And both assume that natural selection is the architect and director of the universe’s processes. Data showing natural selection to be the guiding fac- tor in the unfolding of the universe are everywhere in evidence. Other eminent scientists than those quoted sanction this conclusion. Finding that modern scientists agree that natural selection is the primal factor in Or- ganic evolution, or in nature’s processes, the author pro- ceeds to refute it without apology. God a Process As above indicated, Organic evolution logically assumes that God is simply a natural process. That. is, He is energy, mind, and matter in function. Is this evolutionary contention true? In order to gratify the reader’s interest in this problem a brief survey of related data follows. Note that Organic evolution assumes that all the [26] Gop A Procsss or A PErRson forms, forces, and functions of the universe, whether in their broader or narrower aspects, are end-results of a natural process. That is, the astral worlds, the vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom, the human kingdom, and human institutions are products of natural selection. But, what does this process mean? Is its import of vital significance to mankind? That these questions may be rationally answered, a survey of the meaning of Darwin’s natural selection follows: In the first place, natural selection means that develop- ment is the end-result of the chance functions of natural law. Accordingly, all of the forms of the universe are products of accidental variations. To get the signifi- cance of this statement it is necessary to view it against the background of scientific judgment. Science teaches that the universe, in both its broader and narrower aspects, discloses order, designs, patterns, and plans. Granting the existence of such planful forms and accounting for them in terms of natural law, it obviously follows that Organic evolution makes blind forces funce- tion intelligently ; it makes accidents become the father of plans; and it makes fortuitous variations select as personality. Organic evolution thus makes an unintelli- gent cause produce an intelligent effect. The planful umnwerse thus becomes the product of planless law. To explain order, design, patterns, and plans in terms of accident, chance, or fortuitous variations is untenable. Reason and experience outlaw such an explanation. In the second place, natural selection means that decision is the end-result of the chance functions of nat- ural law. Accordingly, human mentations are acci- dental. Consequently, the volitional activities of the [27] Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? race are blindly induced, the judgments of the race are products of fate, and the events of the race are but end-results of man’s involuntary responses to the urges of natural law. Thus, decisions are products of blind processes, not personalities. Programs are products of blind-sight, not foresight. Accordingly, the choice of all human activities and relationships is thrust upon individuals without their will or consent. But such a function destroys every vestige of self- determination. Sovereign wills become _ subjects. Accordingly, life’s programs are not individually chosen but naturally imposed. Every decision, every judg- ment, every purpose of the race is simply an end-result of the blind selections of natural law. But to rule completely out of human life the principle of free choice is to enslave the race. Reason and philosophy both indict such procedure. In the third place, natural selection means that char- acter is the end-result of the chance functions of natural law. Human integrity is thus accidental. Accordingly, the powers and habits of the individual are pre-ordained by the selective functions of natural law. The human mind, the human will, the human emotion, all are off- _ springs of the natural process. If chance happens to | favor the individual, then he may be reckoned among the gods. If chance be against him, then he may be nil among men. But experience shows that the individual is more or less the architect of his own destiny. He is a thinking being. He develops ideals and gives them concrete ex- pression. Each person, to a greater or less degree, gar- ners his own capital, gathers his own material, builds [28] Gop A Proczss or A PERSON his own roadbed, manufactures his own train, and drives his own engine into the station of success or failure. Individuals, conscientiously giving expression to their planful thoughts, determine more or less their own character. In the fourth place, natural selection means that destiny is the end-result of the chance functions of nat- ural law. Accordingly, human destiny is accidentally induced. If the conduct of individuals is absolutely determined by natural law, if they have no power to fix goals or to choose ultimate residence, and if volitional activities are blindly induced by natural selection, then success or failure, victory or defeat, is beyond the power of individuals to determine. Heaven or Hell is beyond their power to choose. Self-determination being com- pletely outlawed, individuals are completely chained by law. Eternal servitude marks their footsteps. The law of fate is the law of their life. If their future is re- ~ nowned, all honor must be ascribed to nature’s law. If their future is inglorious, the responsibility for the same must be attributed to the same source. If fate is master, then human glory is colorless. But such a function destroys individual responsibility. If the principle of self-determination is destroyed, then each individual must be absolved from all responsibility for his acts. In the light of natural selection, governments loom as huge jokes. They exist to guarantee something which obviously cannot exist. To illustrate, civil and penal law exists to guarantee the rule of justice. Now, if the chance functions of law destroy individual responsibility for conduct, then there can be no such a thing as guilt. [29] Can An Evouutionist Bs A CHRISTIAN ? If there is no such a thing as guilt, then there can be no injustice to prevent or justice to enforce. Accordingly, natural selection absolutely subverts the moral aim of government, and completely outlaws the moral and reli- gious heritage of the race. In the light of natural selection, morality is a huge joke. Morality constitutes the race’s judgments as to right and wrong. Its tabooes and sanctions are gover- nors of human conduct. As an institution, it exists to guarantee the regnance of right over wrong. But if right and wrong cannot exist, then morality becomes a leech upon civilization. Such, indeed, was the conclusion of Rousseau, who, in his zeal for naturalism, exclaimed, ‘‘Man is free but is everywhere found in chains.’’ Accordingly, the race enslaves itself by its own ethics. In the light of natural selection, religion is a huge joke. Where there is no responsibility for individual acts, there can be no sin. Where there is no sin there ean be no sanctions. Where there are no sanctions there ean be no rewards. And where there are no rewards, there can be no Heaven or Hell. If natural selection, through destroying individual responsibility for conduct, outlaws justice, morality, and religious sanctions, then it removes all restraints to hu- man behavior and fosters anarchism and death. If tabooes and sanctions are destroyed, it manifestly follows that every individual becomes a law unto himself; hence, the obvious leadings of natural selection are anarchic and chaotic. Let the world rid itself of such heartless nihilism ! Doubtless Orthogenetic Organic evolutionists would protest this evaluation of natural selection on the ground [30] Gop A Process or A PERSON that they posit purpose in natural processes. The thoughtful, however, will remember that they admit a major role for chance changes. Surely, any chance changes in natural processes outlaw the claims of super- naturalism and, at the same time, minimize the value of purpose in nature’s behavior. Chance outlaws choice. But do these logical implications satisfy reason and philosophy? Will chance, as a vital functionary and as a selective principle of behavior, ever satisfy any honest seeker-after-truth that it is the determiner of life and its forms? Can any possible mental rummagings or ex- plorations or demonstrations make accident, chance, or fortuitous change to be the determiners of order, designs, patterns, and plans? The verdict of reason and philoso- phy is that planful orders and forms cannot be satisfac- torily explained by planless law. Therefore, the concept of God as a natural process must be tabooed. G od a Person If reason tabooes the concept of God as a natural proe- ess, and outlaws the idea of accidents, chance, or for- tuitous variations as being the determiners of planful forms, forces, and functions, then it becomes reasonable for the earnest enquirer to explore the data offered in support of supernaturalism. Supernaturalists contend that a rational interpretation of the universe must be grounded in personality, and they introduce four wit- nesses in support of their contention; namely, Reason, Philosophy, Experience, and Revelation. Witness of Reason After exploring the heavens and the earth and exam- [31] Can An Evoxuutionist Ba A CHRISTIAN ? ining forms appearing within the limits of human activi- ties, Reason concludes that the. universe is an orderly system. The study of the heavens universally discloses planful forms and functions. Every astral body has an individual orbit. Every star has a panoply of glory. Every thule radiates heavenly lumination. Every orb hangs upon nothing and is bound inextricably to every other orb with lines of invisible and intangible energy. Moreover, every heavenly body co-operates with every other heavenly body in translating the sun’s light into the life of men. The heavens manifestly disclose a plan- ful order. Reason insists that such order implies the existence of an orderer. Mark Twain, Paine’s ‘‘Mark Twain,’’ says: ‘*No one who thinks can imagine the universe made by chance. It is too nicely assembled and regulated. There is, of course, a great Master mind.’’ Candid answers to the following questions ought to have significant bearing upon the issues involved. Reader friend, could you create the astral bodies, put them in the heavens, establish their orbits, and determine their goings? No! Do you know of anyone who could? No! Do you know of anyone who knows of anyone who could? No! Now, if the heavens are planful and fune- tion harmoniously, and you yourself, or your friend, or your friend’s friend, could not make, order, or determine¢ their functions, then must you not admit that such an orderly universe implies the existence of an intelligent orderer, and that such a maker and mover must mani- festly be a Transcendent Being? In the light of the above, must you not confess your own impotency, and, [32] Gop A Procrss orn A PERson at the same time, confess that the existence of the uni- verse and its order implies that One 7s who is potent ? Again, the animal kingdom shows design. A micro- scopic study of animal cells discloses such designs, cor- relations, beauty, symmetry, and co-operation in cell activity that the human mind stands helpless before such planful art. Normal Histology, a biological course regu- larly offered among academic studies, ought to convince any honest seeker-after-truth that no multiplied millions of accidental variations could account for the designs, correlations, beauty, symmetry, and co-operative func- tions of these little microscopic bodies. Reader friend, could you make, correlate, and estab- lish the co-operative functions of animal cells? No! Do you know of anyone who could? No! Do you know of anyone who knows of anyone who could? No! But these microscopic cells are fashioned after designs. Back of every design must be a designer. Now, if you your- self, or your friend, or your friend’s friend could not make, correlate, and establish the functions of these little infinitesimal cells, then Reason insists that you must admit that there is One who did, and that He who did is a Transcendent Personality. Again, take the color schemes disclosed in the animal world. Nature’s camouflage is so complete and perfect as never to be even approximated by the hand of man. The tree frog, the squirrel, the partridge, the reptile, etc., all show a color scheme so complete and so blended with their environments as to convince the thoughtful of the existence of an Infinite Personality. The human camouflage in coloring is but an attempt to approximate [33] Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? the work of an Infinite Hand in nature’s planful law of blending. Finally, the vegetable kingdom shows plans. Every vegetable form discloses a plan. Every leaf, every bud, every petal, every fruit reveals patterns and plans. Reason insists that back of every plan must be a planner. Now, dear reader, could you make these plans? No! Do you know of anyone who could? No! Do you know of anyone who knows of anyone who could? No! Now, if you, or your friend, or your friend’s friend could not create these forms, correlate them, and establish their functions, then, since they exist, must you not admit that there is One who did? Since vegetable forms are plan- ful and since you confess your inability to create these planful forms, Reason insists that a supernatural being must be requisitioned to explain them. In conclusion, Reason grounds decision, development, character, and destiny in personality. Back of all plans, and processes, and persons, according to the voice of Reason, is an Infinite Personality. The study shows that physical forms, forces, and functions do exist, and that human mind and human power are impotent to fashion and fix the universe with its heavenly and earthly forms. Hence, Reason insists that an empiric interpretation of the above named data forces the requisition of an Infinite Personality to explain them. Or that a rational interpretation of the universe must be grounded in One who thinks, and in One who has power to act. Witness of Philosophy The philosopher is ever confronted with the task of [34] Gop A Process orn A PERSon interpreting data. Experience has wrought out a certain method of approach and attack. Comprehended within the philosophic point of view are typical facts concerning problems, procedure, and personality. Facts for philosophic interpretation are typical human nature, typical human needs, and typical human expe- rience. These facts are manifestly involved in the uni- verse of reality and truth. According to Horne’s ‘*Philosophy of Education,’’ three philosophic questions inescapably arise in a survey of observable, investigative, and experimental facts: (1) What is reality? (2) Does all fact point toward an eternal unity? and (8) What is absolute truth ? What 1s reality? Is it perceived facts? Is it some- thing that is limited to human experience? If reality is something that is limited to human experience, then the phenomena lying beyond the present reach of human mentations are to all intents and purposes non-existent. According to this interpretation there is no reality apart from an intelligent human response. Such an interpre- tation manifestly abridges reality. It appears more ade- quate to say that reality 1s what 1s. But, what is cer- tainly reflects intelligence; hence, reality roots itself in personality. Does all fact point toward an eternal unity? The approach to the meaning of fact is through typical data. The scientific attack upon fact is through induction and empiricism. Through inductive processes deductions are derived. Through tested experiences certain forms and forces are viewed as typical ones. That is, they repre- sent more or less universal habits or activities of man- kind. For instance, scientists go into certain sections [35] Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHRIstIaAn ? of England, France, Russia, Asia, South America, and North America, and find homes established upon the mating principle of one wife and one husband. They conclude that these represent a typical form of mar- riage, and that the universal law of mating is monogamy. Upon the basis of their findings they assume that the part is symbolic of the whole. Again, scientists visit the slum districts of Chicago, New York, San Francisco, New Orleans, etc., and find gambling dens obtaining in each and all. Upon the basis of their findings, they: conclude that gambling obtains in all slums. Hence, they assume that the part is symbolic of the whole. Now, the philosopher applies this principle of proce- dure in his approach and attack upon philosophic prob- lems. He assumes that the part implies the existence of the whole, that the relative implies the existence of the absolute, and that the visible implies the existence of the invisible. | In actual life, the philosopher discovers that human nature is equipped with mind, energy, and love. In- vestigations reveal each attribute to be relative. Upon the basis of the above assumptions, he concludes that the existence of relative human mind implies the existence of an absolute mind, that the existence of relative human power implies the existence of absolute power, and that the existence of relative human love implies the existence of absolute love. Hence, these typical aspects of human nature, each respectively, imply the existence of an om- niscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Personality. Typi- cal human nature thus implies the existence of an abso- lute God. It follows from this that a philosophic inter- [36] Gop A Procsss or A PrERson pretation of the universe grounds all in an Infinite Personality. In actual life, the philosopher perceives human beings with typical and universal needs. He sees man impor- tuning provision and protection, redemption and direc- tion, and conversion and consolation. Human need importunes provision and protection. The power of the race to provide these is relative. Man- kind satisfies them in part, not in whole. The race’s lack must be supplied; hence, this typical need demands the existence of an absolute provider and protector. Accordingly, there must be an Infinite God who assumes the role of a Father to earthly people. Human need importunes redemption and direction. The ability of the race to unshackle itself is measurably ereat. Some of its fetters are humanly breakable, while others are not. This relative role of human redemption and direction implies the existence of a supernatural redeemer. Accordingly, there must be an Infinite God, who assumes the role of a Son to earth-bound pilgrims. Human need importunes conversion and consolation. The equipment of the race to convince and convert is markedly great. Its resources, however, are inadequate to remove all doubts and yearnings from the human mind and heart. Hence, the existence of unrequited doubts and heartaches implies the existence of One with power to convert and to cheer. Accordingly, there must be an Infinite God, who assumes, the role of a Comforter, the Spirit, to storm-tossed, eternity-bound people. It follows from the implication of these typical human needs that they imply the existence of a triune God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. A [37] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? philosophic interpretation of typical needs grounds their explanation in an absolute Trinity. Finally, in actual life, the philosopher observes the race in its typical experiences. He sees human beings with relative power inventing, manipulating, and mas- tering. On the basis of the part being symbolic of the whole, he contends that if finite creatures can cause the winds to yield their blessing, the waters to surrender their energy, the atmosphere to give up its electrical potency, the earth to increase its bounty, and the moun- tains to deliver up their priceless treasures, then it would not be unreasonable to asume that the Maker of man could control the thunderbolt, calm the storms, still the waves, send the harvest, and gather wealth from the . bosom of the sea. The philosopher concludes that the inventive, manipulative, and mastering activities of the race imply the existence of an Infinite Personality, creating, controlling, and crowning. What is absolute truth? Is it perceived reality? Is it meaningful objective and subjective phenomena? Is it forms of the universe discerned as symbols or mani- festations or patterns? Is it neural habits risen to the plane of consciousness? Is it actually experiential ? To limit truth to human experience is to abridge it. Such procedure manifestly cireumscribes the outlook of the race. The limitations of human activity would pre- vent the realization of a perfect vision. Accordingly, the race would be destined to run its course in the twi- light of truth. It would have to forego the blessings of truth’s noonday radiations. Would it not be more adequate to say that absolute truth is an embodiment of the life of an Infinite [38] Gop A Proczss on A PERSON Personality which manifests Himself in the forms, forces, and functions of the universe? In the light of this definition, the symbols or manifestations or patterns dis- closed in the universe become indices pointing toward absolute truth. The universe as it exists at any moment is admittedly an effect. An effect, however, is but a half truth, since it is but an outer manifestation of an inner cause. Accordingly, absolute truth is both subjective and ob- jective. Subjectively, it is a cause, and objectively, it is an effect. Thus, whole truth comprehends both the cause and the effect. It is important at this point to remember that the cause is logically antecedent to the effect. Now, since the universe as an effect reflects in- telligence, there must be antecedent to it an intelligent cause. Therefore, absolute truth must be grounded in personality. To sum up, one is justified in saying that absolute truth is Infinite Personality manifesting Him- self in the forms, forces, and functions of the universe. What, then, is the verdict of the philosopher? Accepting the regular scientific practice of assuming that the part is symbolic of the whole, that the relative is symbolic of the absolute, and that the visible is sym- bolic of the invisible, he concludes that typical human nature, typical human needs, and typical human activ- ities imply the existence of an Infinite Personality. To recapitulate, he concludes that typical human nature implies the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God; that typical human needs imply the existence of an Infinite Triune Being who assumes the role of a Father, of a Son, and of a comforting Spirit ; and that typical human experience implies the existence [39] Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? of an Infinite Personality, creating, controlling, and crowning. He asserts that such conclusions are neces- sary complements of relative fact. Therefore, the ver- dict of Philosophy is that supernaturalism is indispens- able for a rational and reasonable interpretation of the forms, forces, and functions of the universe. Philosophy declares that God is an Infinite and Glorious Person- ality. Witness of Human Experience Concerning the witness of Experience, there is a three-fold testimony to review; namely, personal, sym- bolical, and clinical. Personal testimony: Clouds of witnesses bear testi- monials concerning their experience with and their faith in the Infinite God. From the beginning of the race until now, individuals have borne witness to the leader- ship of an Infinite Personality. Some testified by tongue, some by pen, some by deeds, and some by miracles. The ages are freighted with testimonials for the fact and function of deity. Myriads declare daily by lips their undying faith in the Christ as Saviour and Lord. Multi- tudes declare daily by life the transforming power of the Infinite Personality. And many declare daily by pen their zeal for supernaturalism and their love for its Christ. . Now, the thoughtful will not abruptly brush aside these testimonials for they come from the lips and the lives of men and women whose integrity cannot be challenged. | Symbolical testimony: Evidence in symbol declaring human faith in an Infinite Personality is abundant. [40] Gop A Procsss on A PERson Architecture sanely witnesses in multitudinous forms human faith in a majestic God. Literature seemly at- tests in myriads of rhymes a supernatural Christ. Painting silently proclaims in unnumbered productions human trust in a divine and Infinite Being. And Stat- uary surely declares in countless patterns the sover- eignty of Infinity in the hfe of mundane creatures. Moreover, the flower and the fruit bear undying testi- mony to a personality which transcends the powers of man. Climcal testumony: Harold Begbie’s ‘‘Twice-Born Men’’ discloses unique and indisputable evidence for. the fact and function of supernaturalism. His book, which is in reality a clinic in regeneration, offers many in- stances wherein men attest their belief in salvation from above. The first clinical evidence submitted is that of ‘‘The Puncher,’’ a vile wretch who came from a respectable family. As a lad, he had an ungovernable temper and was pronounced unmanageable. He began early to steal and to drink. He took an adolescent fling at wildness and daring. He entered the pugilistic profession and disclosed remarkable traits as a puncher. After defeat- ing the most renowned of the pugilistic world, he turned to horse racing. In this role, he defrauded and cheated, and finally went down in disgrace. In the meantime, his wife’s love grew cold toward him and she declared that she was done with the wretch. Turning from his domestic infelicity, he plunged more deeply into crime and slime. Perhaps few men in all history have become viler criminals than he. With murder in his heart and with a dagger in his pocket, he [41] Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? invited his wife to go with him to a local music hall. Out of fear the invitation was accepted. While on the way, ‘‘The Puncher’’ was invited to enter the Salvation Hall by an old converted drunkard. He turned from him, struck across the road, and entered into a public- house. While there, a sense of shame seized him, a guilty conscience pricked him, and a depraved life con- demned him. Out of his penitence, conversion and superlative joy was born. Quoting from the text: ‘*He says that it is impossible to describe his sensations. The past dropped clear away from him. An immense weight lifted from his brain. He felt light as air. He felt clean. He felt happy. All the ancient words used to symbolize the spiritual experience of instant and com- plete regeneration may be employed to describe his feel- ings, but they all fail to convey with satisfaction to him- self the immediate and delicious joy which ravished his consciousness. He cannot say what it was. All he knows is that there, at the penitent form, he was dismantled of old horror and clothed afresh in newness and joy.’’ The author indicates in his narrative that ‘‘The Puncher’’ was instrumental in saving some of the worst men in the underworld in which he moved. His activ- ities after his conversion clearly attested the genuine- ness of it. The second clinical illustration introduced by Mr. Begbie is that of ‘‘A Tight Handful.’’ According to a record of his life, he drank the dregs of degradation. He passed from virtue to vileness, and from continence to crime. He hated his wife, cowed her with a threat of [42] Gop A Procsss or A PERSON murder, bemoaned the existence of his baby, and cursed life in general. Mr. Begbie says: ‘And now we reach a point in the story where mys- tery, unaccountable to the man himself, enters and hur- ries the conclusion. ‘On his first journey that day, from the Bank to Shepherd’s Bush, this young guard heard a voice. He tells you quite calmly, and with a resolution of convic- tion nothing can shake, that as distinctly as ever he heard sound in his life, he heard that morning a voice, which said to him: ‘It is your fault, not God’s, that you cannot be saved; you won’t trust.’ ‘*It was the suggestion, which psychologists perfectly understand, of surrender; the clear, emphatic injunction of Christ—the stressed idea expressed in so many forms —the absolute necessity for losing one’s life, laying down one’s life, losing one’s soul—the new birth, being born again—almost, one might say, the swe qua non of Christ’s revelation. ‘‘To yield, to cease to struggle, to be passive, to be as clay in the hands of the potter—utterly to surrender the will to some vast power dimly comprehended and vaguely desired—this was the instant and poignant movement in the mind of the man following the sound of the voice. ‘*He surrendered. “The miracle had happened. * * * ‘‘Such an amazing revulsion, such a complete and total transformation of character, is an achievement possible only to religious influences. Hypnotism, as I know, can undoubtedly, after many weeks of operation, cure some men of their vices. Drugs are able in certain eases, after a long and difficult treatment, to remove the taste for aleohol. But it is only a religious force which, in the twinkling of an eye, can so alter the character of a man that he not only then and there escapes and stands [43] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? utterly free from tyrannical passions, but is filled full of great enthusiasm, desires to spend his whole life in working for righteousness, and feels as if he had fed on honey-dew and drunk the milk of Paradise. . ‘“‘This is the wonder-side of conversion which no theory of psychology can explain. It is also the greatest force in religion. Theology has no proofs; religious ex- perience does not need them.’’ The author concludes that ‘‘A Tight Handful’’ was completely changed; that his whole life was filled with delightsome joy; and that his subsequent activities veri- fied the genuineness of his conversion. It was not a change of thinking simply, it was a change of nature and living. Mr. Begbie introduces numerous other clinical studies, all of which bear similar testimonies to the miracle of redemption. Dr. Howard A. Kelly, world-famous surgeon and scientist, submits other clinical evidence. The December issue, 1924, American Magazine, carries an article en- titled, ‘‘The Most Important Thing of My Life.’’ In this monograph Dr. Kelly answers the question, ‘‘Is it literally true that Christianity remakes men ?”’ After witnessing to his belief in the transforming power of the gospel, and after affirming his faith in a supernatural God, he submits two clinical studies, which he asserts demonstrate the miraculous nature of Chris- tian salvation. Wallace and MacLellan, immigrants to America, sought a livelihood as textile workers. They took to drinking. They went from bad to worse. They drank the dregs of degradation. Mrs. Bradford, Dr. Kelly’s [44] Gop A Procsss orn A PErRson sister, became interested in them. She sought earnestly to enlist them in the service of her Master. At length she succeeded in leading Wallace to accept Christ as Savior and Lord. The change in his life was complete. ‘““Moday,’’ says Dr. Kelly, ‘‘ Wallace is a highly respected man. He owns his own happy home and has a fine son and daughter. He is an effective public speaker, a leader in his section—in short, a substantial, upright ' Christian citizen.’’ Thus, a Transcendent Christ mirac- ulously transformed his life. Following Wallace’s conversion, he immediately set about to bring MacLellan, his old friend, to accept Christ as Savior. Years went by, and at last he succeeded in bringing him to accept the gospel as heaven’s provision for lost souls. ‘‘Old things passed away.’’ A griping, carping, and hating being was transformed into sun- shine and joy. He was truly freed from his chains. These clinical evidences submitted by Dr. Kelly repre- sent a universal and incontestable fact, namely; the re- ligion of the Lord Jesus Christ is actually and imme- diately transforming in its essence and function. The impartation of the divine light through the ministry of the Holy Spirit regenerates human nature, giving human beings new motives, new outlooks, and new programs. Concerning this, it should ever be remembered that Christianity is demonstrable not in a single act but in the laboratory of human experience. Witness of Revelation We have observed that Reason, Philosophy, and Ex- perience demand the existence of an Infinite Personality in order to give rational explanation to the things which [45] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? are. We come now to look at the voice of Revelation, and in turn discover its verdict. The witness of Revelation, as disclosed in the Bible, assumes on the one hand that the part is symbolic of the whole, and declares on the other hand that God is an Infinite Personality with omiscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent capacities. Bible evidence illustrating that the part is symbolic of the whole is manifold. For example, the hand disclosed at Belshazzar’s feast was a part which obviously implied the existence of a whole. Again, the environment upon the Mount created by the Transfiguration of Jesus typified the environment of Heaven. Thus, the part was symbolic of the whole. Again, the Apostle Paul declares the same principle when he says: ‘‘Now we see through a glass darkly, then face to face. Now we know in part, then we shall know even also as we are known.’’ In these we see the hand implying the existence of a Supreme Being, the environment implying the existence of another world, and the language declaring the exist- ence of an eternity of absolute light. A supreme hand, a perfect environment, and an absolute light are all im- possible apart from an Infinite Personality. Revelation not only agrees with Philosophy in assum- ing that the part is symbolic of the whole, but it openly declares the existence and regnance of a Supreme Being. Genesis 1:1: ‘‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”’ [46] Gop A Proczss on A PERSON Psalms 2: ‘‘Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set them- selves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.’’ Psalms 90:1-2: ‘‘Lord thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.’’ ' John 3:11-17: ‘‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know. and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down ‘from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever be- lieveth in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- [47] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.’’ Hebrews 6:18-20: ‘‘For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself. Saying, surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to le, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.’’ Revelation 1:7-8: ‘‘Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Hven so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the be- ginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.’’ Revelation 22:18-19: ‘‘For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.’’ [48] Gop A Procrss or A PERson Now, if these scriptures do not declare the existence and regnance of a Supreme Being and avow the absolute nature and finality of the Scriptures, then the English language is meaningless. Revelation declares by symbol the existence of God Transcendent. It reveals an In- finite Personality creating forms, forces, and functions, and giving directions to the whole of them. Accord- ingly, Revelation grounds a rational explanation of the universe in an Infinite Personality. The reader is invited to recall that Reason, Philoso- phy, Experience, and Revelation agree as one in their assumptions and in their conclusions. They agree that the relative is symbolic of the absolute, and that a Being supernaturally creating, controlling, and crowning must exist. Let the atheists, the rationalists, and the materialists look well to facts before indicting the verdict of Reason, Philosophy, Experience, and Revelation concerning life. Reason, Philosophy, Experience, and Revelation all agree that back of order, designs, and plans there must be an orderer, designer, planner. They all agree that order, designs, and plans cannot find rational explanation in accidents, variations, or fortuitous change. They all further agree that a rational effect must pre-suppose a rational cause. Therefore, the verdict of the four is that God is not a process but a Person, and that He is not natural law but an Infinite Law-Giver. [49] CHAPTER III Import of Organic Evolution S already witnessed, the principles of evolution and naturalism are very closely related. The logic of the first produces the second and the functions of the second reciprocate the first. Evolution is the ereatest asset of present day naturalism, and naturalism is a regular feeder of evolution. The question of evolution is admittedly an attractive one. It has had a profound influence upon the educa- tional and social activities of this age. All evolutionists are practically agreed as to the gen- eral meaning of evolution, but in their application of the same they fall, not into one, but into two evolu- tionary schools; namely, Materialistic and Theistic— Organic, Atheistic, and Cosmic evolution really fall into the Materialistic category. The Materialistic school bases its system upon natural law. The Theistic school bases its system upon Infinite Life in natural law. The present study will deal especially with the Organic aspect of Materialistic evolution. The next chapter will seek a definition of Theistic evolution, and in turn apply the definition derived to supernaturalism. As an approach to the definition of Organic evolution, it is necessary to remember that it is not synonymous with development. If evolution were defined as develop- ment or progress surely all would subscribe to it. Evi- dence for development is everywhere apparent. Plants [50] Import oF Organic E:votuTIon develop from germination to maturity, animals from conception to full-grown creatures, human beings from fertilization of the ovum to the maturity of individuals, and society from simple culture to complex social ex- istences. Concrete evidence of social progress is abun- dant. The race in passing from absolutism to democracy, from the 3 R method to the modern methods of educa- tion, from the domestic system to the modern factory system, and from old rectangular church buildings to modern church plants, has most surely demonstrated development. No one need be dubious about asserting progress. Science and human experience justify the statement that there is development according to natural law. They further justify the statement that natural law is not left to the dominion of accident but is controlled by a supernatural being. Now, the crux of the theory of Organic evolution is » not development but it is transmutations. For it to be a reality, lower species must naturally transmute into higher ones. A careful study of life forms discloses a complete absence of data verifying the transmutation of species, and reveals veritable clouds of witnesses attesting changes and development within the species. Structural changes in organisms do not constitute new species; they simply demonstrate modifications within species. The modern draft and saddle horses, the modern beef and dairy cattle, the modern bacon and lard hogs, the modern wool and mutton sheep, and the modern egg and meat fowls all demonstrate species development. Moreover, the grapefruit, the Burbank potato, the Ponderosa [51] Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRIstTiIan ? tomato, and the ever-bearing strawberry, demonstrate the same principle. All are prima facie evidence of de- velopment within the species. Such development is un- deniable. While one may say with almost dogmatic certitude that there is development within the species, one may, at the same time, say with equal certitude that transmu- tation of species is an ultra-scientific doctrine. It is not demonstrable. Notwithstanding the fact that Organic evolution is a challenging ideal, the wary now, as of old, know that all that glitters is not gold. Before proceeding further with this study, it is neces- sary to seek definitely the meaning of Organic evolution. Meaning of Evolution Herbert Spencer, ‘‘Principles of Biology,’’ says: ‘‘Evolution is an integration of matter and concomi- tant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from relatively indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a relatively definite homogeneity; and during which the retained motion (energy) undergoes a parallel trans- formation.’’ | Le Conte, famous modern scientist, says: ‘Evolution is continuous progressive change, accord- ing to certain laws, by means of resident forces.’’ K. D. Cope, noted evolutionist, says: ‘‘The doctrine of evolution may be defined as the teaching which holds that creation has been and is accomplished by the energies which are intrinsic in evo- lutionary matter, without the interference of agencies that are external to it.’’ [52] Import oF Orcanic KvoLutTIon H. W. Conn, ‘‘Evolution of Today,’’ says: ‘‘Hvolution, Organic evolution, and the theory of descent, are practically synonomous terms and each of these is used to indicate the theory that all species of animals and plants (including man) existing today have been derived from others living in the past, by direct descent, and they will themselves give rise in the future to other still different species. * * * The essential idea which underlies the whole theory is that species have had a natural rather than a supernatural origin.’’ Huxley, noted rationalist, says: ‘‘The whole world living and not living is the result of the mutual attraction according to definite laws of the powers possessed by molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed.’’ Marion D. Shutter, ‘‘ Applied Evolution,’’ says: ‘*Eivolution means that the earth, instead of being flung into space, a ready-made sphere from the hand of God, took its rise in nebulous mists and clouds, and by a process of whirling and condensing and cooling, through countless ages, became the globe of today. Evolution means that, whatever the ultimate origin of life, the plants and flowers and grasses and trees which clothe the earth were not made at once, as we behold them now ; but began in the simplest and fewest germs; and by gradual changes under varying conditions, attained the variety, luxuriance and beauty which wreathe the brow of the planet. It means that the members of the animal kingdom in all its departments, were not, each kind, called into being in a moment, and in fixed and definite and unvarying and unchanging species, but that the whole (animal) kingdom began countless ages ago in a [53 ] Can An Evouvutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? shapeless mass of jelly, and has developed from one to another to man.’’ Bergin and Davis, ‘‘Principles of Botany,’’ say: ‘‘This doctrine of special creation gave way to the present belief in Organic evolution, or the theory of descent, chiefly through the work of Charles Darwin, whose famous book, ‘‘The Origin of the Species,’’ ap- peared in 1859. The theories of Organic evolution hold that all existing species of animals and plants have been derived, or evolved, through the geological ages from the simplest forms of life in the beginning.’’ The University Encyclopedia says: ‘‘The evolution theory in its broadest aspect under- takes to explain the origin of the universe, of all created things, material and immaterial. * * * Evolution is a law the operation of which is traceable throughout every department of nature. * * * The origin of all mammals from one common parent form upward to man is an established fact. Man’s evolution can be traced upward from a fish in 12 steps or stages.”’ The New International Encyclopedia says: ‘The evolution theory, in its broadest aspect, under- takes to explain the origin of the universe, of all created things material and immaterial; and more especially the origin of our own planet, together with the plants and animals living and extinct, including man, his physical and mental nature. * * * Life appears to have been a necessary and inevitable result of Inorganie or Cosmic evolution. It came into being on our planet in the most natural way as soon as the temperature of the originally superheated planetary mass became sufficiently lowered, and the gaseous matter had been condensed into a uni- versal sea. It arose by the action of physico-chemical laws, through what we call spontaneous generation, the [54] Import oF Organic E\voLUTION materials for the formation of the first bit of living protoplasm being ready at hand.’’ The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: ‘‘Evolution, therefore, must be viewed in science purely and strictly as a process of orderly change in the form of things. As such it assumes the existence of substance or substances and of a force or forces working its suc- cessive transformation.’’ According to Darwin, Organic evolution is an ideal which supposedly describes the creation and the life processes of species within animal and vegetable king- doms. As previously seen, this ideal, in order to stand the test of logic, has been made to embrace the larger concept of Cosmic evolution. Science has thus come to view and to treat evolution from this larger aspect as well as from the Organic one. According to the larger concept, evolution is used to describe the processes of, not simply living phenomena, but all of the forms, forces, and functions of the uni- verse involving organic and systemic relationships. In short, it is the universe in an unrolling or, better, un- folding process. Accordingly, such evolution describes the processes of creation and reproduction in both the animate and inanimate forms of the universe. It de- lineates the processes of change from nebulous mists to the universe, or from protoplasm to man. It is impor- tant to remember that these changes are never externally induced but are ever internally wrought out. Organic evolution may be defined as nature unrolling as a scroll, or as a natural process of unfolding from within to without, never from without to within. Thus, [55] Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? it is not change, it is natural change; it is not develop- ment, it is natural development; it is not progress, it is natural progress. Stated completely in positive terms, Organic evolution is natural change, natural develop- ment, and natural progress. That is, 7t 1s something on the inside working itself out, never something on the outside working itself in. With reference to man, it is an unfolding animal stream manifesting itself in various animal forms. Accordingly, man never came from the monkey, but from the same animal stream whence the monkey came. For a graphical illustration, see the next page. Method of Evolution Now, in the light of the meaning just adduced, the method of Organic evolution appears. Jt 1s natural selection. That is, it 1s nature selecting. According to the guidance of nature, Organic evolution may be described (1) as a natural process, (2) as an upward process, (3) as a process of and by itself, (4) as an inevitable process, or (5) as a blind process. It is, therefore, energy resi- dent in matter, working itself out and manifesting it- self in organic forms. As a process, it is always evolu- tionary, never involutionary. To understand the major significance of Organic evo- lution, it is necessary to image a stream of animality in which nature blindly selects its forms from the lower to the higher and gradually evolves an animal life destined to culminate in a complex human animal. After ages and ages of chance variation and struggle, behold man, the king of beasts, was born! [56] SYMPODIAL CURVE Graphical illustration of Orthogenetic Organic evolution KINGDOM OF PERFECTION e Worship <-- Codes <--- Standards @-- Human King. Ideals <— Ideas ae m= Man—King of Beasts <-~------------= w= Missing Link—Pithecanthropi Race <-- Ape—Tailless Monkey <----<{) Animal >>: Monkey King. Amoeba, Fish, Mud Turtle, etc. Survival of the Fittest. <- Struggle Variation Veg. > King. Spon. Generation <----() LIFE SOURCE— ENERGY AND MATTER ‘Transmutations=Natural changes from within to without, never from without to within, from lower to higher forms, or from proto- plasm to man. The learning process is the medium for the attainment of the Kingdom of Perfection. Accordingly, organic evolution is logically a dagger thrust at Orthodox Christianity. Can An Evouvutionist Bs A CHRrIstTIAN? Message of Evolution What is the message of Organic evolution? What is its bearing upon human activities? How does it influ- ence human philosophy? A careful study of it discloses a five-fold bearing upon human life. Organic evolution vitally influences human philosophy and markedly colors human interpretation of biological, social, educational, political, and religious data. Biological Message The biological import of Organic evolution is revealed in natural selection and its three subordinate functions; namely, spontaneous generation, variation, and strug- gle. Natural selection is the all-important factor of Organic evolution. It is nature selecting through law. Accord- ingly, it generates, varies, and perpetuates. Early evolutionary scientists logically and coura- geously offered spontaneous generation as a possible ex- planation of the origin of the first animate forms. They suggested that such sudden generation of life could be explained by chemicals accidentally combining so as to spontaneously produce life. Such accidental generation suggests that chance is the selective principle in the universe’s processes. Accordingly, fate becomes the master of life. Through the epoch-making labours of Pasteur and others, spontaneous generation has been discredited. Many evolutionary scientists to-day substitute ‘‘bio- senesis,’ that is, life from preceding life, for spontaneous generation. Notwithstanding this fact, spontaneous generation is logically a necessary part of Organic evo- [58] Import oF Orcanic EvoLutTion lution. If an Infinite Personality is outlawed by such evolution, chance must rule. Accordingly, the life obtaining in the universe must have been accidentally and spontaneously generated. Concerning animate life, Organic evolution logically and actually teaches that the life form or forms spon- taneously appearing in nature’s processes, gradually evolved from the simple to the complex, and that out of the single, or several living cells thus appearing, the various kingdoms, orders, and species have been evolved. Now, the operating law which effected these various life forms is variation. Variation is the insurgent aspect of the law of natural selection. Through the medium of mutations, it is supposed to have differentiated organic life, and to have caused all progress. Thus, without its operation, all life would be stilted and grooved. Furthermore, variation, as nature’s insurgent law, performs the function of an active blind guide. Accord- ing to scientific inference, variation blindly succeeded, after aeons and aeons of time, in evolving and delivering the human race out of the matrix of animality. Through like begetting like until it doesn’t, all life forms have been evolved and human animals have increasingly tamed and mastered their unknown and unconquered en- vironments. The survival of the fittest represents the crowning achievement of nature’s struggle. That is, it represents those forms, naturally selected, with the greatest power of adaptation or co-adaptation. Natural’ selection, through blind purpose and struggle, is the law of laws in evolution. Generation, variation, elimination, and per- petuation are all aspects of the functions of this ruling [59] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? principle in the universe’s processes. Through it, nature blindly selects its superior forms and forces. Accord- ingly, natural selection weeds out the unfit, life forms lacking strength, adaptation, and cunning, by means of struggle, famine, disease, mal-adjustment, and death. It perpetuates the fit, life forms having strength, adapta- tion, and cunning, by killing off the weaker, by prevent- ing reproductions of inferior types, and by encouraging the reproduction of the superior types. With refer- ence to man, it weeds out the hapless and the helpless, and selects the intelligent and the strong. Thus, the survival of the fittest is the end-result of the whole struggle of nature’s processes. Organic evolution, under the guidance of the law of natural selection, im- plies without the shadow of a doubt the super-man theory of Trietschke, who maintains that the best of all the people are the Germans, and the best of all the Ger- mans are the Prussians. The super-man is the inevitable result of such a natural selective process. To sum up, the biological import of Organic evolution is three-fold: First, it starts life without conscious effort. Second, it makes all progress and differentiations in life. the end-result of variations. And third, it achieves, through mutations and eliminations, a super-man type of manhood. If the journey of man is actually up and out, it would follow that all inferior types would ulti- mately be weeded out. Social Message The social import of Organic evolution becomes at once apparent when one looks at the biological principles just adduced. According to the above principles, social [60] Import oF OrGANIC EvVoLUTION disorders and social strata are inevitable. The reasons for these are inherent in the Organic evolutionary pro- cess. In the first place, social disorders would inevitably spring from the nature of the conditions under which it is claimed evolving human beings have experience. Organic evolution logically teaches that man emerged from the sub-human world, without human experience; and that he entered the realm of humanity with brain capacity for thinking but without any accumulation of knowledge. Now, if the first man stood at the gateway of humanity without human experience, he was obviously without any standards by which to measure his conduct. Without tested experiences to fall back upon, he would manifestly have to develop his tabooes and sanctions. Organic evolutionists actually teach that the early life of the race was hard and arduous, and that through the medium of its conflicts with harsh environments, it slowly evolved its social standards and institutionalized its life. It is explained that while man was in the proc- ess of evolving his social and institutional standards, he was forced to make countless adjustments. At one time he was resisting invading clansmen, at other times he was resisting harsh environments, and still at other times he was fighting for food supplies. It is asserted that these conflicts were inevitable because primitive people had to live off of an untamed and uncontrolled nature. When drought or calamity visited regions, neighboring clans- men would fight to obtain as much of the meager food supply as possible. It thus happened that the weaker fell before the stronger; hence, the fittest survived. Wars thus appear as inevitable adjustments of man- [61] Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? kind to adverse conditions. Wars, famine, disease, sin, and death come out of man’s attempt to conquer nature, and out of the misdirection of his native impulses. In the all-but-blina gropings of the race to find its way out, war, murder, vice, crime, oppression, and repression appear as logical sequences of the learning process. If man’s original pathway was unillumined by intellectual and spiritual standards, then the institutions of feudal- ism, despotism, and slavery are but natural results of the social life of the race. Therefore, the race’s mistakes are not due to innate depravity but to the absence of intel- lectual controls. All sufferings, anxieties, and social disorders are thus attributable to ignorance, not to wrong nature or to sin. In the second place, social strata are inevitable. As previously indicated, the operation of the law of natural selection would logically produce super-types of men; hence, classes would obtain. The number of classes is not implied, but classes are implied. Moreover, they are manifestly blood classes. The evolution of the super- man is conditioned upon variation ard death, death by means of war, famine, disease, and sin. ‘‘Life lives upon death.’’ The intellectually élite thus live at the expense of the intellectually inferior. History is replete with evidence showing wars, famine, disease, sin, and death to be class makers. In this connection, it is important to remember that the biological basis for super-men becomes at once the genetic condition for an intellectual aristocracy. The logic of Organic evolution is that the fittest physically should become the fittest mentally. The social message of this is, the fittest intellectually should guide the des- [62] Import oF OrGAnic KivoLutTIon tinies of the race. Now, this social phase discloses an important trend in modern education. Educational Message The educational import of Organic evolution is re- vealed in the influence of evolutionary principles upon the aims, methods, and materials of education. Orgame evolution vitally influences the aims of educa- tion. According to patent implications, the aims of edu- cation should be to evolve tested and humanly workable standards for social control, and to develop an élite class for social leadership. With reference to the first, work- able standards for social control are essential requisites for shaping human conduct. The character of ideals thus becomes all-important. With reference to the second, intelligence must be discovered and trained to lead. Obviously, the mentally élite alone qualify to survey existing social conditions, to select the socially efficient ideals, and to formulate them into a better system of socialized education. Now, if natural selection creates an intellectual aristocracy, and if the aim of education should be in harmony with the law of nature which pro-. duces it, then it would follow that the aim of education should be to train, on the one hand, intellectual aristo- erats for social guidance, and to perpetuate, on the other hand, a large group of willing subordinates. The sov- ereign and the subject are clearly discernible in this aim. Orgamc evolution vitally affects the method of educa- tion. According to biological principles, the method of learning is ‘‘trial and error.’’ So far as the biological science is concerned, all the knowledge of all the ages is [63] Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHRistTIaAn? thus achieved. Although much knowledge has un- doubtedly been lost during the untoward experiences of the race, yet the best has apparently persisted in human custom and folkways. The trial and error method is simply a testing one. It is natural pragmatism. Ac- cordingly, if, on the one hand, group experience appears to work for its well-being, the experience is idealized and incorporated into group customs. If, on the other hand, group experience appears to work for its undoing, the experience is tabooed and handed down as a negative sanction. Hence, through the process of appraising its experience and eliminating the unsocial, the race has gradually risen in the scale of civilization. It happens, however, that groups idealize experiences whose values are but passing ones. These being incor- porated into group custom are handed down from gener- ation to generation. Such erroneous customs become social ballast to progress. Reason at once suggests that such ballast should be removed. To do this, the aceumu- lated customs of the race must be brought under the searchlight of inductive science. Herein is revealed the basis for the question mark in modern education. This pragmatic attitude may be summed up in the statement, ‘“Put a question mark after the past.’’ From these facts, it is obvious that Organic evolution directly influences the methods of educational procedure. Organic evolution vitally influences educational con- tent. Under the impact of the question mark, the cur- riculum tends to be abridged in some instances and en- larged in others. On the one hand, there is a tendency to discredit the classics, to divorce idealism from text books and classroom, and to remove supernaturalism [64] Import oF OrGanic Evolution from the learning process. On the other hand, there is a positive tendency to encourage ‘‘bread and butter’’ sub- jects in the curriculum, to promote technical training, and to foster naturalism in education. Under the ideal of naturalism, all ideas, ideals, standards, and beliefs are humanly evolved. None are given by divine fiat. Hence, a premium is put upon human nature and human experience. Accordingly, the materials for the class room should be of and for man. All others should be excluded. A summary of the educational message of Organic evolution shows that the aims, methods, and materials of education are selfward; that race succor is humanly achieved ; and that reason is the rescuer of man. Such a selfward program would manifestly affect every phase of human activity. Its influence upon politics is espe- cially apparent. Political M essage The political import of Organic evolution is three- fold: It encourages absolutism, repression, and oppres- sion. As previously indicated, Organic evolution implies the development of the super-man. Now, this ideal applied to government simply means that the super-man should rule. Perhaps no difficulty would be entailed in this, if only such leadership already existed and was actually in control of governments. But facts show that all rulers to date have been, and are, individuals with limitations common to the masses of mankind. The realization of super-man rulership is obviously yet to be. [65] Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHristIAn ? The following question naturally obtrudes itself. How can such governmental leadership obtain ? An answer to this question is revealed in natural selec- tion. According to it, the fit survive by means of nat- ural powers, strength, cunning, and adaptation, and by the aid of external actualities, war, famine, disease, and death. Thus, natural selection operating in nature normally selects the most adaptable and forcefully elim- inates the unfit. But man is a natural force! Now, if the fit should obtain, the unfit should be eliminated; if the unfit should be eliminated, he who can ought; and if he who can ought, then the end justifies the means and might becomes right. Therefore, it inescapably follows that if ‘‘might is right’’ a world empire and a world prince should obtain. Furthermore, if the ‘‘end justifies the means,’’ then war, murder, vice, and erime may become the choicest virtues, providing they elim- inate the weak and advance the fortunes of the fittest. A world empire would involve the subordination of all phases of human activities to the will of its prince. Despotism, whether enlightened or callous, would tend to fetter individual initiative, and to repress democratic expression. Subserviency and repression would become the laws of the realm. But repression would manifestly involve militarism. With man insurgent by nature, no prince could maintain a world empire without mailed force. Therefore, force would consequently be idealized. Militarism and materialism, twin sons of death, would array themselves in gorgeous splendor and vaunt them- selves of much glory. Under the influence of force, heart values would be scoffed at, love would become sheer sentimentalism, and wedlock would become mere animal [66] Import oF Organic KivoLuTIon attachment for the purposes of satisfying sex impulses and for the perpetuation of the species. Individuals would exist for the state, and not the state for indi- viduals. A conquering prince would thus require a nation in arms, and a nation in arms would mean a repressed constituency. A world empire and a world prince involves oppres- sion. Conquest is the right arm of imperial expansion. Intermarriage and diplomacy function in dynastic ex- pansion, but they are surely secondary to war. The world prince, being a thorough-going opportunist, and being unfettered by moral scruples, would freely use the two methods of oppression, namely; diplomacy and war. According to Organic evolution, both are legitimate weapons of oppression. Diplomacy, tricks, intrigues, bribery, cajolery, etc., are rightful tools to promote the expansion of state. Moreover, infidelity, if previous treaties tend to hamper the expansion of the state, be- comes the chief of verities. Under the operations of such a principle, treaties become ‘‘scraps of paper,’’ and international law becomes nil by the will of the sovereign. Thus, by lies, intrigues, and infidelity, the prince oppresses and enslaves nations and peoples. When diplomacy fails to secure the desired expansion, the prince has recourse to war, the chief weapon of oppression. By overpowering, crushing, and enslaving, he adds more and more to his domain. An intriguing, warring, and enslaving prince lives consistently with the ideal which actuates him. There is a natural tendency for individuals who think themselves to be super-men to become laws unto them- selves. Herein is where great trouble lies. There is no [67] Can An Evouutionist Br A Curistran? limit to the number of people who think themselves to be super-men, and who feel that social and material re- demption is wrapped up in their personalities. With the regnance of such ideals, it is no wonder our day witnesses professed solvents for all human ills in modern socialism, bolshevism, syndicalism, mhilism, and ration- alism. The promoters of all these believe themselves to- be the hope of the world. Each of these groups receive basic ideals from Organic evolution. It is significant in this connection to remember the functions of ideals. They not only shape the character of activity but they motivate action. The ideal, Organic evolution, along with all others, wherever and whenever accepted, tend to find expression. Such a tendency ob- viously enlists many school rooms in translating evolu- tionary ideals into acts. Many educational leaders obviously pattern classroom procedure after evolution- ary implications and suggestions. The political message of Organic evolution is far- reaching and tragic. Under its logic might becomes right, vice becomes virtue, lies become leaven, cajolery becomes joy, murder becomes manna, and bestiality be- comes business. Oppression, repression, and suppression become honored hand-maidens of personal power. According to Organic evolution, all governments are products of man’s experiences as he passed from pure animality toward pure rationality. In other words, vovernments are institutionalized customs evolved in the second stage of the animal series; namely, the custom stage. It is declared, however that man passed out of the stage of instincts before entering the custom stage, and that before governments are truly perfected, he [68 ] Import oF OrGanic EvoLutTion must also pass out of the custom stage and enter the stage of reason. Now, the study of governmental sanc- tions and tabooes, supposedly induced by Organic evolu- tion, compels a study of religion which undergirds all morality. Religious Message The import of Organic evolution upon religion is, broadly speaking, two-fold: It champions naturalism, and attempts to discredit supernaturalism. Naturalism is inescapable in Organic evolution. A reference to the biological discussion recalls the sugges- tion that man emerged from the lower animal world without experience, and that he entered upon his human journey without any standards, religious or otherwise, by which to measure his conduct. He was, upon his emergence, simply an animal whose brain development qualified him to think. He was not religious; he had to become religious strictly through human experience. All of his religious idealism had to be developed. Thus, when he began to develop his religious concepts he began his religious ascent. It follows, then, that such religion as man possesses is natural and evolutionary. Here is where Organic evolutionists draw a line against supernaturalism. If man has been climbing all the time, then there has been no fall. From this, many important conclusions may be drawn: If man never fell, then there is no occasion for regeneration from above; if no need for regeneration from above, then there is no need for a God-man to redeem from sin; if no need for a God-man, then there is no need for the Cross; if no need for the Cross, then there is no need for the Christ; and [69] Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? finally, if no need for the Christ, then there is no occa- sion for a religion which offers blood redemption for human succor. Accordingly, naturalism stands exalted, and supernaturalism stands indicted before the court of logic. It is significant to note that Organic evolution, in banning supernaturalism, and in championing evolution rationalizes religion. Religion thus becomes evolved ethics. Right is what is socially approved, and wrong is what is socially tabooed. All standards of right and wrong become simply human standards. Hence, ethics by divine fiat is frowned upon. Accordingly, then, the moral judgment of the race is the only standard of right and wrong that man can know. By reason, selection and appraisal, man gradually weeds out his unethical standards, and is thus able to ‘‘lift himself by his own bootstraps.’’ Such a gospel of ethics is distinctly a human gospel. As to supernaturalism, Organic evolution reduces God Jehovah from the state of a creator to the plane of a creature, from the state of a sovereign to the plane of a subject, from the state of a person to the plane of a process, from the state of omnipotence to the plane of impotence, from the state of omniscience to the plane of ignorance, and from the state of omnipresence to the plane of cruelty and neglect. Accordingly, God is im- personal; He is simply evolution. A survey of the above principles concerning evolution and religion impels the following conclusions: In the first place, Organic evolution makes the Chris- tian religion to be a socially evaluating attitude toward the universe, declares it to be ethical in essence, and out- [70] Import oF OrGAanic E\voLutTIon laws an energizing role for a Divine and Transcendent Life. | In the second place, Organic evolution commits Je- hovah God to such a program of ruthlessness that true reason and justice revolt at it. In the third place, the social implication of Organic evolution, which divides society into sovereign and sub- ject classes, is not in harmony with the spirit end mes- sage of Christianity. In.the fourth place, the educational implications of Organic evolution are so subversive of the aims and ethics of Jesus, and so suggestive of class distinctions and hatred, that under its impact, class strifes and destructive wars would increasingly mark the footsteps of the race. In the fifth place, Organic evolution, in destroying initiative, democracy, liberty, and autonomy, would de- stroy the moral and ethical equilibrium of the race. In the sixth place, the principles of Organic evolution very flagrantly violate the spirit, essence, and nature of Christianity. In substituting naturalism for supernat- uralism, super-physical for miracles, mental illumina- tions for revelations, imagination for inspiration, works for grace, ethics for blood, opportunism for convictions, convenience for loyalty, and lastly, man for God, it sub- verts all that constitutes the life and essence of Chris- tianity. In the seventh place, in ignoring the inrolling or in- volutionary processes of life, Organic evolution outrages the claims of logic and limits the frontiers of truth to the borders of things material. [71] CHAPTER IV Defects of Theistic Evolution N the present study, the author refrains from stating the doctrinal elements of Theistic evolution. The reason for this attitude is two-fold: First, it is occasioned by the absence of any approved Theistic evolutionary creed. As a rule, Theistic evolu- tionists have opposed credal statements and as a con- sequence they have been tardy in conventionalizing their beliefs. It is true that different individuals have ex- pounded Theistic tenets, but there appears to be no real agreement among them. Consequently, for the author to attempt to say what they believe would be a presump- tion. Silence as to Theistic tenets is obviously the only fair course of procedure. Second, it is occasioned by the author’s purpose. His aim in this study is not to elaborate the claims of Theis- tic evolution, but to define it, and in turn apply the logic of the definition to the claims of supernaturalism. Readers may question his definition but not rightfully his right to choose this line of procedure. As a preparation for the present treatise, the above study of Organic evolution has just been made. The author assumed that a knowledge of the undergirding principles of Organic evolution is indispensable to the understanding of the principles of Theistic evolution. Space will not permit a resurvey of the principles ad- vanced above, but a restatement of the definition dis- [72] Derscts oF THeristic KivoLUTION closed will logically serve as an approach to the present study. The reader will recall that the ideal, Organic evolu- tion, is supposed to describe life and all of its forms in a process of natural unfolding; that is, it is supposed to describe an inner dynamic, actively functioning and blindly guiding nature’s processes. It is, thus, some- thing on the inside working itself out; never something on the outside working itself in. Accordingly, all of the living forms of the universe are absolutely end-results of the operation of the resident forces of nature. Or- ganic evolution, as previously seen, is simply natural change, natural development, and natural progress. To further elaborate, it is a natural process, an upward pro- cess, a process of and by itself, an inevitable process, or a blind process. Now, the immediate bearing of such an ideal upon worship is only too obvious. In the light of it, all religion 1s natural and evolutionary. Moreover, its immediate bearing upon Christianity is equally obvious. It, too, 1s natural and evolutionary. | Meaning Marion D. Shutter, ‘‘ Applied Evolution,’’ says: ‘“‘The God. of evolution is inside of nature and not outside of it. And when we consider that man himself is a part of nature, and the best part of it, we must find God also in him, pre-eminently in him.”’ In the light of this definition God is simply immanent in nature; that is, He is completely identified with nature’s processes. If God is not transcendent to but [73] Can An Evouuttionist Br A CHRISTIAN? is completely identified with nature’s processes, then there is no escape from the conclusion that He works and selects only as nature works and selects. Some one might say, ‘‘Oh, no, I do not believe that God completely identifies Himself with nature’s pro- cesses. I believe that God controls nature’s law.’’ Such a position surrenders the whole argument. To illustrate, - if God is not completely identified with nature’s pro- cesses but controls natural law in its functions, then He is superior to nature. If superior to it, then all of His strength is not required for its control. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is, God is a transcendent being. Now, if natural processes are under the control of the Infinite God, why limit Him and His activities to the functions of natural law? If natural law yields to Infinite Life, why not magnify personality rather than processes? Why not herald the majesty of Christ and the absolute beauty of His labours, rather than ‘‘the majesty of law and the absolute beauty of order ?’’ Another might say, ‘‘Oh, no, I do not believe in any mechanistic theory of evolution. But I believe that God evolved all things through natural processes; I be- lieve the human animal is a product of Organic evolu- tion, and that, upon the emergence of man from the animal stream, God ‘‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.’’ Now, the difficulty with the process just described is, it is not an evolutionary one. Evolution in the strictest sense involves only one factor; namely, nature. It is essentially a closed system. The process described above admits the functions of two factors; namely, natural law and Infinite Life. In it, the closed system of nat- [74] Derscts oF THetstic EvoLuTIon ural determinism is destroyed by injecting an extrinsic force or agent. All should remember that the moment God enters into natural processes, His acts, being invo- lutionary, destroy evolution. It has been observed that both of the above Theistic evolutionists contend for the transcendency of God and, at the same time, limit His regular activities to natural law. Science to date offers no grounds for forging such chains for Him. All will agree that an Infinite God would not create chains for Himself. To limit God, who, according to the above admissions, is superior to natural law, to the processes of nature means that men forge chains for Him. Why limit God to natural processes? The answer is, He must be limited to nature if Organic evolution is true. The evolutionary ideal is exclusive. All past, present, and future existences and all purposes, plans, and per- sonalities must find explanation in the selective functions of natural law. Accordingly, evolution must account for Jesus Christ. Concerning this, Shutter further Says: ‘Granted the greatness and goodness of Jesus, how do you account for Him? What is the relation of Him to this theory of evolution? Do you mean to include Him and His work in the general scheme? Can it be done? And the answer is: Yes, if evolution fails at one point, it fails utterly. We have then a case of that special intervention by a non-resident deity, which we have repeatedly repudiated. Evolution must include Jesus, or we must abandon the theory. There is no break or flaw or chasm. The process is one, from fire mist to soul; from the soul to its highest expression. [75] Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? Jesus is as much the product of the laws and forces in nature and in society as Shakespeare or Napoleon.”’ The relationship existing between Organic and Theis- tic evolution appears in the definition of the latter. The author believes that Theistic evolution is widely mis- understood. The reason for this belief is revealed in the fact that many professedly Theistic evolutionists try to make a place for involution in evolution, when actually, as Shutter shows, evolution will not permit such a role. It is important to remember that if any external power or agent enters into and influences the life of the uni- verse or any individual, such an influence destroys evolu- tion. With this in mind, a definition of Theistic evolu- tion may be advanced. Theistic evolution 1s no more and no less Shun Organic evolution with God read into the process. If Theistic evolution is but Organic evolution with God read into the process, then to all intents and pur- poses it may be described as a natural process, an up- ward process, a process of and by itself, an inevitable process, or a blind process with God in each of these aspects of activity. Thus, it appears that process, and not personality, is determinative; that the author of order shuts Himself up to and makes Himself helpless in the order which He made; that the maker of the natural process ties His own hands with the process which He made; that the maker of natural law sur- renders Himself to the function of the law which He has made; that the sovereign volitionally becomes a subject ; and that the vessel regularly controls the potter. Accordingly, the God of Theistic evolution may be [76] —— Derscts oF TxHristic EvotutTion said to be like the man who is reputed to have made a barrel, shut himself up in it, and had it dropped in the Niagara above the Falls. Thus, at his own will and direction, he made himself helpless in the process of the flowing stream. The man obviously fastened his own leashes when he committed himself to the blind forces of nature’s stream. The analogy between this unfortu- nate man and the God of Theistic evolution is quite complete. According to Theistic evolution, God created energy and matter, established law, initiated the natural process, gave direction and limits to nature’s functions, and, in turn, shut Himself up to and made Himself help- less in the process which He made. Thus, God’s method of procedure is identical with the natural process of Organic evolution. It obviously follows that God uses only the same laws, evolves only the same forms, and selects only the same way that Organic evolution uses, evolves, and selects. All out-and-out Theistic evolutionists must admit these principles. To fail to admit them is to destroy their premise. To admit the Transcendency of God is to admit the involutionary claims of orthodox Christians. Evolution ceases to be evolution the moment that God wills a change, because such activity is an external inter-. ference with internal processes. Evolution to be evolu- tion must be natural change, wrought by the operation of energy and law resident in nature. Such a process is admittedly a blind selective process. The law of ‘“‘chance’’ thus becomes the law of life. Accordingly, Jehovah God gradually creates the universe with all its forms; aimlessly yields Himself to its immutable laws; [77] Can An Ewvoxuutionist Be A CHRIstTIAN ? and blindly guides in the evolution of all existences and co-existences. ‘‘Oh, Consistency, thou art a jewel!’’ For Theistic evolutionists to assume, on the one hand, any role for an Infinite Personality in nature’s processes is to deny evo- lution. For them to assume, on the other hand, any role for ‘‘chance’’ selection in nature’s processes is to de- throne God. According to the last assumption, God ceases to be. Religiously speaking, the logic of Theistic evolution leads inevitably to agnosticism. The difference between Organic and Theistic evolution emerges here. The difference 1s not one of method but one of motie. The Organic process ts logically aimless. The Theistic process 1s logically both aimless and plan- ful, aumless in method and planful in motive. Method In the light of the definition advanced above, the real essence of Theistic evolution appears here. While assign- ing to Jehovah God Infinite power, purpose, and under- standing, 1¢ makes Him work helplessly, aimlessly, and blindly. God, infinite in power, is made to play the role of a pigmy. God, infinite in purpose, is made to econ- duct Himself aimlessly. God, infinite in understanding, is made to perform the role of an ignoramus. Thus, it is seen that His method ensnares His motive, and His performance fetters His personality. In short, His method of procedure fetters Him. With reference to this method, it is interesting to ob- serve the position of J. Arthur Thomson concerning it. Interest in his contentions is justified by virtue of his [78] Derects oF THeristic HvotutTicn unquestioned position in the scientific world. In his recent book, ‘‘Concerning Evolution,’’ he says: ‘We know that some variations arise from what might be called a shuffling of the hereditary cards contained in the chromosomes of the germ-cells, and there ‘s in this a certain fortwtousness. It appears to be by a chance distribution that some of the chromosomes in the nucleus of the egg-cell are removed in the first polar body. On the other hand, the permutations and combinations of hereditary factors that result in new patterns must be in some measure congruent with the already established architecture. * * * Often indeed the environment selects the organisms, but it is also true that organisms some- times select their environment. In short, living crea- tures are not passive pawns; they play their own game, they take a share in their own evolution. Whenever this is true, fortuitousness has markedly shrunk, though it never disappears. We cannot give a scientific account of some of the ‘chances’ that have meant much in our own life.’’ : ‘‘(I) The evolutionist discloses a sublime cosmic pro- cess, continuing without rest, without haste, for millions of years, with what might be anthropomorphically called a patient progressiveness. Not by a sudden fiat has Animate Nature come to be as it is, but by a long-drawn- out proving or testing and holding fast that which is good. | ‘‘(IT) We discern progressiveness in the long history —a movement towards greater integration and differ- entiation, towards a fuller and freer life, towards more dominance of mind. There are trends in Organic Evolu- tion which are in the direction of man’s highest ideals— truth-seeking, beauty, and goodwill. No doubt there are strange blind alleys—e. g., in Sponges and some Corals— with an extraordinary exuberance of sheer complexity and yet without any great advance; no doubt there are what might be called eddies and retrogressions, simplifi- [79] Can An Evouvutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? cations and even degeneracies; but on the whole Life has advanced and evolution has been integrative. That is its main trend, and its momentum is behind us, intrinsic to our nature and in some measure dynamic in our social heritage. ‘‘(IIT) One idea must be given up—that of the ‘Divine Artificer’ of the ‘Special Creation’ theology. In scientific honesty we are bound to leave behind us Paley’s idea that these beautiful fitnesses are the direct outcome of Divine skill. But when we surrender an old idea because we know it cannot be true, we get some- thing in return, not always in the individual life-time, but eventually. And in exchange for Paley’s argument from Design we get a wider Teleology. The Institution of the Order of Nature was such that living creatures when they emerged were able to evolve in ever-improving adaptedness, in a growing mastery of their environment, and with an increasing explicitness of mind. ““The process of evolution from invisible animalcules has a magnificence that cannot be exaggerated. It has been a process in which the time required has been, as it were, of no consideration, in which for many millions of years there has been neither rest nor haste, in which broad foundations have been laid so that a splendid superstructure has been secure, in which, in spite of the disappearance of many masterpieces, there has been a conservation of great gains. It has had its outcome in personalities who have discerned its magnificent sweep, who are seeking to understand its factors, who are learn- ing some of its lessons, who cannot cease trying to inter- pret it. It looks as if Nature were Nature for a purpose, and as we cannot predicate purpose in a vast system, we must reverently ascribe it to a Creator. We plead that edna picture is in harmony with the Vision of od.’ Two primary positions appear in these excerpts. Mr. Thomson avows the immanency of the Creator and, at [80] Derects oF T'Heistic EHvoLuTIon the same time, recognizes a major role for fortuitous evolution. Surely, the greatest attribute that any evolutionist ean logically assign to deity is wmmanency. Accord- ingly, he personalizes nature. To all intents and pur- poses, the Creator becomes nature with outcroppings of purpose appearing now and then. For him, on the one hand, to posit a ‘‘Creator’’ both transcendent to and immanent in the universe would surrender his whole position. For him, on the other hand, to contend simply for the immanency of the Creator in nature discounts God. To illustrate, to limit the Creator to a role of immanence is to completely identify Him with nature, and such identification obviously outlaws His trans- cendency. To grant fortuitous evolution is to admit accidental changes in natural processes. To admit such chance activities leads to two alternative conclusions; namely, (1) That some of nature’s activities are not comprehended in the purpose of the Creator, or (2) That some of them are beyond His control. If, on the one hand, the race agrees that some of nature’s activities are not comprehended in the purpose of the Creator, then it must conclude that He has fashioned or identified Himself with a machine which He does not know. If, on the other hand, the race agrees that there are natural processes beyond the Creator’s control, then it must admit that He has fashioned or identified Himself with a machine which He cannot run. Therefore, to admit any chance functions in any of the processes of the uni- verse is to belittle the Creator and, at the same time, indict evolutionary Teleology. To assume that the Creator would make or identify Himself with a universe [81] Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CurRistTIAN ? that He doesn’t know and can’t or won’t control, indicts Him of ignorance, impotence, and indifference. Surely the Bible outlaws chance as having widely influenced the forms and functions of existences and co-existences. Ex- perience and reason both insist that the Creator must be an absolute, Transcendent God, or nothing. To com- pletely identify Him with nature and assume that He is in a process of becoming, part free and part slave, is a travesty. Who is willing to commit his destiny to a Pilot measur- ably fettered, relatively wise, and admittedly incapable of controlling the processes of the vessel. No under- standing person is willing to follow a more or less blind and impotent guide. To do so would but invite ship- wreck. Thus immanency, assigned to the Creator by J. Arthur Thomson, discounts both God and man. In the light of these facts, what should the race do? Since it has been seen that the Creator, when assigned simply a role of immanence, fails to satisfy the human mind and heart, the race should obviously reject such leadership. The voice of Logie declares that such leadership ensnares both God and His followers. Surely, Theistic evolution, in committing God to the method of Organic evolution, commits Him to an impossible role, and in doing so discounts Him and His followers. Discounts God The first outstanding defect of the method of Theistic evolution is, 7¢ discounts God. By committing Him to the Organic method of procedure, it manifestly dis- credits His Word, work, wisdom, and worth. Theistic evolution discredits God’s Holy Word. It [82] Derrects oF THeEistic HvoLUTION logically challenges the professed source and character of the Scriptures because it logically teaches that the Bible is a gift of human experience. In making God work simply through natural law, it inescapably teaches that religious phenomena are naturally induced. Ac- cordingly, it substitutes mental illuminations for heay- enly inspirations, and human convictions for heavenly impressions. The Bible thus becomes a mere accumula- tion of humanly approved experiences into which reli- gious values have been read. As such, it is only a book of history, ethics, and literature. As history, it un- scientifically attempts to trace the evolution of the race and the development of its institutions. As ethics, it unquestionably represents the best Judgment of the race in its appraisal of right and wrong. And as literature, it unerringly represents the summum bonum in the art of thought. It is Ciceronian in beauty, Shakesperian in comedy and tragedy, and Wilsonian in clarity. As history, it has little scientific value. As ethics, it reflects the best judgment of the race. And as literature, it reaches the superbest heights of human thought. Finally, if the Bible is simply a book of history, ethies, and literature, it logically follows that it may be sup- planted at any time by the Bible of the World. If the Bible is but a humanly created book, then Theistic evolutionists have grounds for substituting the ‘‘Bible of the Word’’ for the Holy Bible. Accordingly, the Holy Bible is but a gift of the human past. Its miracu- lous claims are but outcroppings of magic. And its his- toricity is most questionable. Thus, Theistic evolution plays the Holy Writ down to the level of carnality, ascribes to all of it relative values, and forces it into the [83] Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? category of human achievement. When a disciple of Theistic evolution reads, ‘‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for re- proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,’’ or, when he reads, ‘‘ Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away,’’ two alternatives in- escapably await him. If he is intellectually honest, he will confess, on the one hand, that the Bible is an un- scientific and erroneous book, or, he will admit, on the other hand, that his evolutionary assumption is unsound and in turn accept involution. Since the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God, they are involutionary, not evolutionary. The very premises of Theistic evolution cheapen the Word of God. Theistic evolution discredits God’s work. It logically reduces His labors from the plane of the supernatural to the level of the natural. In doing so, it flays the marvel- lous and the wondrous in the reign of God’s grace. Accordingly, Theistic evolution outlaws the miraculous in God’s creative activities; insists that all the forms of the universe are gradual evolutions; and removes the transcendent element in the Genesis account of creation. But, according to Genesis, God created both the in- animate and the animate forms of life, the inanimate being disclosed in the larger aspects of the universe, and the animate in the vegetable, the animal, and the human kingdoms. God created not only the various species but He set bounds for each special creation by limiting each to bring forth after its kind. By the process of like begetting like, He absolutely circumscribes the life activities of each specie. But, according to Theistic evolution, God evolves all exis- [84] Degrects oF THeistic EivoLuTion tences from lower to higher forms through series of eradual changes. Such a process obviously denies spe- cial creation and in turn affirms the transmutation of species. Genesis teaches that like begets like. Theistic evolu- tion teaches that like begets luke until it doesn’t. The first denies the transmutation of species. The second openly declares the same. With reference to the teach- ing of the latter, it is important to remember that trans- mutations discount the special creations indicated in Genesis. Theistic evolution outlaws the miraculous in God’s re-creative activities. Accordingly, salvation is but an end-result of the learning process. In fostering a natu- ralistic method for God, Theistic evolution discounts the power of the Blood and flays the supernatural elements of the Cross in the plan of redemption. In spite of this logical negation of mGernariealigne God’s miraculous work is declared in the Bible, and is disclosed in the lives of redeemed souls. Bible evidence of His miraculous power is revealed in the Sinaitie visi- tations, the translation of Elijah ,the cleansing of Naa- man, and the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. The miraculous work of God is not only revealed in His redemptive activities, but the marvellous and the miraculous are everywhere disclosed in all exis- tences. It is safe to say that if His work is not mirac- ulous, then it is meaningless. God’s miraculous work of redemption is revealed in His Son. ‘‘For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world should be saved through Him.’’ Oh, the mystery of it! ‘‘The wind [85] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth. So doth every one that is born of the Spirit.’’ Oh, the marvel of it! Life lives upon death. ‘‘And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me.’’ God in- carnate is here offered as the condition of human succor. The judgment of millions is that Christ alone can save, and that the race is helpless to redeem itself, Theistic evolution notwithstanding to the contrary. According to the logic of Theistic evolution, Jesus Christ was but a super-man. As such, He represented in Himself the crown of nature’s chance selections. It is pointed out that by virtue of His superiority He was able to salvage His ethics from the accumulated mass of . the race’s moral and religious traditions, and to organize His findings into an Hthical Theism with a view to help- ing the race lift itself by its own bootstraps. In fol- lowing the lead of Logic, Theistic evolution substitutes cultural salvation for blood redemption. Such a substi- tution is obvious since the organic process denies the doc- trine of total depravity, and affirms the infallibilty of human nature. Now, if man is naturally good, such a state of being would obviate the need of regeneration. Accordingly, the superlative need of the race is direction, not cleansing. Notwithstanding the fact that Theistic evolution logi- cally outlaws the existence and function of a miraculous God, and outlaws the fact and function of depraved human nature, clouds of witnesses whose integrity can- not be questioned, freely confess their natural bent to sin, and gladly witness to saving grace as disclosed in Christ Jesus. The Bible universally declares man’s guilt [86] Derscts oF TxHeistic EvoLutTion and asserts Christ’s power to save from sin. Millions of blood-washed redeemed daily attest His amazing grace, and myriads of translated blood-washed souls fill the welkins of heaven with pans of endless praise. God’s plenteous work of grace is disclosed in His attitude toward and in His tireless efforts to save and to serve untoward generations of people. God’s atti- tudes and efforts are absolute negations of Theistic evolution. God is no respecter of persons. ‘‘Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.’’ Yet, Theistic evolution would have God evolve classes among men, and establish human activities upon the basis of caste lines. God is compassionate. ‘‘ Jehovah willeth the death of none, but that all should be brought to repentance.’’ Yet, Theistic evolution would have God evolve the fit by forcibly eliminating the hapless and the helpless. God eternally cares for His own. ‘‘There shall not any man be able to stand before Thee all the days of thy life. As I was with Moses, so TI will be with thee. I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.’’ Yet, Theistic evolution outlaws God’s providence by causing Him to work heartlessly and blindly. God is love’s exemplar. ‘‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever be- lieveth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” He so loved that He gave. Yet, Theistic evolu- tion causes Him to sharpen His sword and to eliminate the hapless and the helpless by means of war, famine, disease, sin, and death. God eternally fellowships His own. ‘‘Or ever the silver [87] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? cord be loosed or the golden bow! be broken or the pitcher be broken at the fountain or the wheel at the cistern, then shall the dust return unto the earth as it was and the Spirit shall return to God who gave it.’’ ‘‘For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.’’ Yet, Theistic evolution denies such a heaven and fellowship for hu- man souls because it logically denies the existence of eternal righteousness and a world supernal. It mani- festly outlaws the ministry of God’s grace in the life of men and women, and chills the heart of His followers by logically destroying their heaven. Theistic evolution discredits God’s wisdom. It logi- cally commits Him to aimless and heartless procedure, and assigns Him to a blind and purposeless role in the processes of life. Accordingly, the universal wisdom of God is functionless; the universal purpose of God is subordinated to chance activities; and the universal love of God is polluted by eliminating the helpless and the hapless by means of war, famine, disease, sin, and death. Now, to assume that an all-wise, powerful, and loving God would commit Himself to an aimless, heartless, and blind role in the life of the race is to dub Him both mad and criminal. Surely such an assumption flays His wis- dom. How incongruous! How could God have glory in the universe if it were simply a product of accidental variations? But it shows purpose and design! ‘‘The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork.’’ The universe, its life, its laws, its all, discloses God to be immutably wise and eternally incapable of incongruity. His method does not [88] Derects oF THEISTIC EvoLuTiIon ensnare His motive, neither does His mode of activity discredit His wisdom. Finally, Theistic evolution discredits the worth of God. It logically robs Him of the attributes of deity. In playing down His Word, His work, and His wisdom, it discredits His incomparable and glorious integrity. Such evolution scales His worth down to the level of man. To impute to God divine wisdom and universal compassion, and, in turn, assign Him to a blind and heartless role is to play Him down to the level of a poltroon. Human beings intelligently translate their thoughts into acts; why not God? Human beings create love programs; why not God? Is He shorn of judg- ment? Is He divorced of affections? To impute to God omnipresence, providence and boundless love, and in turn cause Him to exterminate the hapless and helpless by war, famine, disease, sin, and death in order to guarantee the survival of the fittest is to impugn His integrity, and characterize Him as diabolically brutal and bestial. Shall He be dubbed Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde? NO! No! ‘God does not cut off His nose to spite His face.’’ God is an infinite and all-wise unity; hence, He refuses to fetter His worth by His method of work. Although Theistic evolution, in ascribing to God a naturalistic method of work, denies His supernatural attributes and activities, and seeks to explain all of His miracles in terms of super-physical processes, that is, in terms of the mind’s mastery over natural forces; and, although it everywhere belittles His supernatural activities, He nevertheless continues to ‘‘move in a mysterious way His wonders to perform.’’ Theistic evolution may assert [89] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? that preternaturalism is adequate to explain all the miracles of the Bible and the marvels of nature, but orthodox Christians will refuse to surrender their age- long, tested, and miraculous heritage for such a mess of intellectual pottage. Christendom attests with great unanimity the miraculousness of His achievements. To summarize and draw conclusions concerning this first big defect, it is obvious that Theistic evolution dis- counts God because it divides Him in Himself, in His leaderships, and in His redemptive work. By thought, He exalts righteousness; by acts, He authorizes sin. By heart, He woos the world; by acts, He callously destroys it. By will, He elects man out of His love; by acts, He heartlessly slays him. By voice, He commands the race to rise up and build; by example, He turns its energies toward self-destruc- tion. By voice, He exalts love motives; by example, He magnifies egoism. By lip, He avows His Saviorhood; by life He re- nounces it. By lip, he exalts supernaturalism in salva- tion; by life, He exalts naturalism in redemption. Now, Theistic evolution, in dividing God in Himself, in His leadership, and in His redemptive work of grace, discredits Him. A divided God tends to be neutralized. Just in proportion as God is neutralized, the work of evil is accelerated among men. It is the author’s candid opinion that Theistic evolution, as a doctrine, is easily a spiritual asp whose poisonous exudations slowly but surely make the race immune to many other deathly vials, and is, as a consequence, seriously imperilling the work of God’s grace. Now, what shall orthodox Chris- tians do? Shall they sit and fold their hands supinely [90] Derects oF THeistic Evolution and let their spiritual treasures be sacked? No! They must fight! They must remember that God is an un- divided unity; that He has not turned the world over to man; that He moves and none ean hinder; that He laughs at His enemies and holds them in derision; that in His appointed time He shall perfect His will in man; and that the race shall one day sing, ‘‘The Kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.’’ God has not and does not and will not pit His acts against His Word, His work, His wisdom, and His worth. Gets Man in Bad The second outstanding defect of the method of Theis- tic evolution is, it gets man in bad. In discrediting the Word, work, wisdom, and worth of God, it undermines human hope, fmth, confidence, and love. The discrediting of God’s Word undermines human hope. The Bible alone stands between man and the valleys. When its promises are discredited, human hope is blasted. Its promises are moorings for the prevention of universal drifts. It alone provides heavenly lenses and heavenly light for an intelligent envisaging of the future. It alone inspires and impels the race on to the doing of tasks, the completion of which can only be realized in eternity. Discredit the Bible and you destroy it. Destroy it, and the race is doomed. Humanity, in rejecting the Bible as God’s Word, robs itself of the cuidance of omniscience and as a consequence treads the desolate paths of sin and death. Discredit God’s Word and hope is gone. A lost hope means a lost world. The discrediting of God’s work undermines human [91] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? faith. What about birth from above, if the incarnation is a myth? What about Christ satisfying mercy and justice in His death on the Cross, if He was but a super- man? What about the atonement, if man and God have never been alienated? What about the Lordship and Saviorhood of Jesus Christ, if man is to lift himself by his own bootstraps? Oh, soul, whither shall man turn if God’s redemptive work is discredited, and faith in Him is undermined? To whom shall he go? To Hammurabi, to Alexander, to Caesar, to Charlemagne, to Lloyd George, to Woodrow Wilson, or to W. G. Harding? No! These all evidence mistakes common to the masses. Shall the race turn to Gautama, to Confucius, to Mahomet, to Joseph Smith, or to Shailer Matthews? No! No! These also evidence weaknesses common to man. If the works of such men as these cannot command the faith of the race, then what? Its only alternative, is to turn to God. ‘‘Have faith in God.’’ Peter enunciated the same conclusion when he said to Jesus, ‘‘To whom shall we go, seeing that Thou alone hast the words of life?’’ To under- mine man’s faith in Christ’s leadership means chaos and death. The discrediting of God’s wisdom undermines con- fidence in the eternal admumstration of His grace. Hu- manity refuses to follow leadership whose wisdom is seriously questioned. If the race spurns the wisdom of God, then its only alternative is to fall back upon its own unstable and changeless nature. To destroy man’s con- fidence in the wisdom of God would tend to destroy pres- ent day religious sanctions, and would cause increasing regnance of disorder and decay. Without the absolute [92] Derrscts oF THeistic EivoLuTIon wisdom of God, which is revealed in His Bi-nomial Word —His Christ and His Book—there would be no alterna- tive for man except drift. Such a drift, inevitable and hopeless, would slowly but surely register the race’s doom. Blasted confidence means a chaotic and ruined world. The discrediting of God’s worth undermines human love. Love is the supreme measure of worth. It is the spiritual nectar which sweetens and inspirits the race. Like the morning lark vesturing the fragrance of dawn with song, it hghtens the heavy heart and turns its sighs into cheer. Discount love and life is marred; express it and life is florid. Love excelling; love surpassing the love of woman disclosed on the Cross is discredited by Theistic evolution. Love born of the heart of the in- imitable and incomparable Christ is played down to mere sentiments by Theistic intellectuals. Love born of hope and faith in Him fades and dies under the im- pact of such rationalism. In putting a question mark after His atonement and His all-sufficient Saviorhood, and in discounting His miracles and His marvels of grace, Theistic evolution tends to cause the race to turn its back upon absolute love and to commit itself to its own egoistic ways. Get this! Tab it! Forget it not! The heart of evolution is race egoism. From the begin- ning of the race until this hour, man has been enthroning himself and dethroning God. Of all the egoistic acts of man, the most consummate bit of selfishness that has ever been delivered from the matrix of carnality is the child—Theistic evolution. The most damning doctrine that Hell has ever spawned in the hearts of men is the same intellectualism. It has just enough truth in it to [93] Can An Evoxutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? attract, and just enough error in it to kill. It attracts because it fits the self-assertive nature of man and it kills because it discounts the work and worth of God’s love. Surely the discrediting of God’s worth under- mines man’s love. Now, is it not obvious that Theistic evolution com- promises the race’s well-being. In its tendency to de- stroy human hope, faith, confidence, and love, it mani- festly gets man in bad. The full significance of this is not entirely disclosed in man’s break with God, but it is further revealed in the fact that negative religious attitudes carry over into life’s activities. To illustrate, faithlessness toward God tends to carry over into faithlessness toward man. Infidelity toward God is antecedent to and prophetic of infidelity toward man. In conclusion, Reader friend, do you not, granting the author’s definition, agree that Theistic evolution gets both God and man in bad? That in putting a question mark after His Word, work, wisdom, and worth, it dis- eredits Him? That in causing man to shut himself up to himself it obscures life, light, and love? And that in accepting Theistic evolution, man presses to his heart a spiritual vampire which gradually saps the vitals of his spirit nature and fixes his footsteps in the ways of death ? Finally, do you not agree that it is yet to be demon- strated that God’s method fetters His motives or that His activities belie His Word, discount His work, becloud His wisdom, and discredit His worth? When Theistic evolution logically assumes that God has a mind but re- fuses to use it, that He has a heart but refuses to disclose [94] Derects oF T'He1stic KHvoLuTIoNn it, and that He has a will but refuses to exercise it, Reason must indict such an inconsistency. Message In the light of the definition presented at the outset of this study, the message of Theistic evolution logically discredits special creations, the fall, regeneration from above, the Lordship and Saviorhood of Jesus, the blood atonement, the resurrection, and the objective immor- tality of the soul. It logically declares God to be an all- powerful, all-wise, all-loving, helpless, and ignorant monster. Theistic evolution must be met, discredited, routed by the sword of truth—God’s Bi-Nomial Word. Let it ever be remembered that God does not work against Himself; that He does not undermine His own _ program; and that He does not surrender His kingdom to the creatures whom He brought forth. God the sov- ereign does not become a subject. The infinite sanctity, sagacity, and sovereignty of God must ever be preserved inviolate. [95] CHAPTER V Passing of Christian Doctrine REVIOUS studies have revealed three significant ’ aspects for both Organic and Theistic evolution; namely, meaning, method, and message. In meaning, Organic evolution is a natural process of unfolding from within to without, never from without to within. In method, it is nature selecting through variation and elimination. And in message, it is a pro- test against God, a person, and an emphasis upon God, a process. ! In meaning, Theistic evolution is Organic evolution with God read into the process. In method, it is God selecting through natural law. And in message, it is an approbation of the evolutionary method, and an em- phasis upon God as an all-powerful, all-wise, and all- loving fool. In Organic evolution, the rule of an intelligent per- sonality is not acknowledged. In Theistic evolution, the existence of an intelligent, but indeterminate, person- ality is recognized. The previous chapter reveals the logical bearing of Theistic evolution upon God and man. The present chapter discloses the influence of Organic evolution upon orthodox Christian doctrines. To all intents and purposes, both classes of evolution outlaw an active reign for the Infinite God. In outlawing the reign of an Infinite Personality, Organic evolution outlaws the divinity of the Bible. In [96] Passina oF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE outlawing its divinity, it outlaws the supernatural doc- trines contained therein. Hence, Bible claims to abso- luteness must consequently pass. To Organic evolution- ists, the Bible is but a human production, or a mere accumulation of relative values. They insist that Bible standards are products of mental illuminations; that right and wrong are human and relative; and that orthodox doctrines are merely approved human judg- ments. Will not all admit, granting the absoluteness of the Seriptures to be nil, that orthodox Christian doctrines are groundless, and that under the influence of objective science they must in time pass into the junk heap of man’s honest mistakes? If Organic evolutionary con- tentions are true, the absolute claims of the Scriptures must dissipate before the searchlight of scientific investi- gation and achievement. In assuming that God is but a process, in asserting that the Bible is but an accumulation of humanly approved experiences into which religious values have been read, and in maintaining that natural forces are determinative in all achievements, Organic evolution completely out- laws supernaturalism and in doing so, obviously outlaws Bible fundamentals. Admittedly a study of Bible doctrines may be ap- proached from different angles. In the following study, the author has chosen to break somewhat with the pre- vious organization of Christian theology. While super- naturalism constitutes the organizing principle of his study, different emphasis and correlations are freely made. In surveying the influence of Organic evolution upon [97] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? Bible doctrines, it will be found that it outlaws the doctrine of a supernatural God, the doctrine of a super- naturally endowed mankind, the doctrine of supernat- ural manifestations, the doctrine of supernatural re- demption, and the doctrine of supernatural rewards. A Supernatural God By virtue of its nature and definition, Organic evolu- tion outlaws the fact of a Transcendent God. Accord- ingly, God is but a process. All would agree that such a definition excludes the existence of a supreme and superlative intelligence. Since such evolution main- tains that nature’s processes are from within to without and never from without to within, there can be no need or place for a Transcendent God to come into the life of individuals. As previously seen, such a role would be a source of interference rather than aid. Now, if Organic evolution will not admit of an involutionary process and if Jehovah’s informational, providential, and re-crea- tional activities are involutionary, then such evolution manifestly outlaws the claims of the Scripture’s deity. In rejecting the claims of the Infinite God, Organic evolution outlaws the idea of the Trinity. In proclaiming the God-head to be an inconsistent doctrine, it obviously outlaws the Trinity, and consequently tabooes the idea of God, the Father, universally protecting human beings; the idea of God, the Son, miraculously saving from sin and shame; and the idea of God, the Spirit, everlastingly wooing men from the lowlands of sin and selfishness unto the highlands of righteousness and truth. It proclaims unity in trinity to be an incongruous doctrine. In assuming that God is but a process, Organic evolu- [98] Passtine oF CHRISTIAN DocTRINE tion destroys the concept of God, a loving, powerful, and all-wise Father, ever and anon providing for and pro- tecting His creatures. In assuming that Christ is but a | super-man, it destroys the concept of God incarnate and outrages the faith of those who trust Him as Savior and Lord. And in assuming that the Holy Spirit is but a mental figment, it destroys the concept of God, a Com- forter, and outlaws the role of providence and love. Concerning the first assumption, the author’s point of view is disclosed in the second division of Chapter I. He shows there that Reason, Philosophy, Experience, and Revelation all agree as one that a rational explana- tion of the universe must be grounded in an Infinite Per- sonality, creating, controlling, and crowning. In the light of facts previously adduced, the doctrine of God, the Father, would pass with the acceptance of Organic evolution. Concerning the second assumption, it is clear, granting the Organic evolutionary hypothesis to be true, that the race has no need for the God-man. ‘To illustrate, if man never fell, then there was and is no need of a Savior; hence, the redemptive preachments of Jesus and the soulful songs of poets about Christ the Savior all become just so many mistakes. In reducing Christ from the plane of Infinity to the level of humanity, he becomes, not a Savior from sin, but a pattern, an example, a human exemplar for the ages. Accordingly, Christ does not save, but the race, patterning its conduct after Him, saves itself. Thus, the Cross of Christ becomes of none effect, a huge mistake in the race’s attempt to find salva- tion and succor. For Jesus and the race, the Cross be- comes, not a crime, but a delusion. [99] Can An Evoxuvutionist Bz A CHristiIAn? Now, if the Cross of Christ is not saving, then it must be enslaving. If the Cross was but a huge mistake in the race’s attempt to find salvation and succor, then to wor- ship Him who died thereon means the enslavement of each deluded worshipper. It would thus follow that the ‘‘dead hands of the past’’ manacle our manifold present. As previously indicated, Organic evolutionists assert the humanity, and deny the deity of Jesus. In thus re- ducing Christ from deity to humanity, it becomes idol- atry to worship Him. In extolling His humanity and denying His deity, Organic evolutionists say, ‘* The glory of Jesus is that He is just like me.’’ And ‘‘Don’t trust Jesus, it is against progress.’’ Now if, on the one hand, they insist that Jesus is the same as they, and, on the other hand, declare that Christ-worship is against prog- ress, then they logically proclaim their own impotency to achieve. Accordingly, humanity is doomed to dwell in a world of endless despair and sojourn in a land of unending defeat. In the hands of Organic evolutionists, Christ ceases to be God and becomes simply a man. Therefore, the doctrine of the Saviorhood and Lordship of Jesus, or the doctrine of God, the Son, passes with the acceptance of the doctrine of Organic evolution. Concerning the third assumption, it is clear, granting the above evolutionary hypothesis to be true, that the race has no need of the Holy Spirit. To illustrate, if the Holy Spirit is but a mental figment created by the fer- tile imagination of some genius, then to reverence Him would be but to commit the race to the leadership of mere fantasy. According to Organic evolution, such a person does not exist; hence, any worship of Him would [100] Passina oF Curistian DoctRINE be irrational. Admitting, for argument’s sake, that the Holy Spirit is but a mental figment, a personalized ideal fabricated by some creative intelligence, one fails to see the reason for rejecting the work of fertile imagination when it relates to orthodox religion and accepting it when it relates to Organic evolutionary science. In the last analysis, all that Organic evolutionists can offer for human succor and salvation is the creative intelligence of the race. Concerning the problem involved here, no one would think of contending that a personalized ideal would be less potent than impersonal ethics. Notwith- standing the obvious agreement here, neither a fig- mentary personality nor rationalized ethics can satisfy the claims of logic or the importunities of longing souls. It takes a personal God in the role of a Comforter to satisfy these. Notwithstanding the fact that the Bible discloses the Holy Spirit to be a wooer unto righteousness and a winner unto salvation, the Third Person of the Trinity, whose office is to convict the world of sin, of righteous- ness, and of judgment, He is actually and completely outlawed by Organic evolutionists when they assume that unity cannot be maintained through trinity. In denying the existence of a personal and a triune God, a God who assumes the role of a Father, of a Son, and of a Comforter, such evolutionists outlaw the doc- trine of election, with its correlative principles; namely, fore-knowledge, fore-ordination, and _ pre-destination. They cannot admit the existence of a person with these powers without denying their present day biogenetic doc- trine; that is, the doctrine that life comes from preceding life. Accordingly, to assume the existence of an Infinite [101] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? Creative Spirit, antecedent to the presence of life furms, would manifestly be unscientific. In facing the doctrine of election, the race faces truth so profound as to almost stagger the human mind. Its heights, its depths, and its breadths are too great for the finite mind to fully comprehend. Notwithstanding the heights, and depths, and breadths of this great doc- trine, there are elements in it which the human mind and heart can discern. As to fore-knowledge, man can image God thinking out the universe, behold Him envisioning its bounda- ries, and see Him delineating the frontiers of life. Man can see Him beholding, choosing, and providing for a race unborn. As to fore-ordination, man can image His heart-throb as He witnessed the ages fetter the crown of His creatures, can behold His determination as He plans their freedom, and can see Him, out of incom- parable love, fore-ordain the helpless to eternal life through Jesus Christ. Thus, Christ stood as a lamb Slain from the foundation of the world. Before the world was, before the earth was peopled with immortal spirits, God fore-ordained human redemption through the efficacy of the Cross. As to pre-destination, man can image God willing that any work initiated by Him- self should be absolutely completed; can behold Him measuring and counting the cost of realizing His goal; and can see Him swearing by Himself because He could swear by no greater, that heavenly anchored souls should be in Him both sure and steadfast. In short, man ean see that God has aforetime beheld, chosen, and pre- destined human beings unto salvation and a heavenly abode in the land of the cloudless day. [102] Passina oF Curistian DoctRINE It is safe to say that no doctrine is more appealing to the intellect, more satisfying to the conscience, and more soothing to the heart than is the great doctrine of election. Notwithstanding its measureless signifi- cance, Organic evolution completely destroys it, and in doing so it outlaws the doctrine of God a supernatural Personality. A Supernaturally Endowed Mankind Orgamc evolution outlaws the doctrine of man, a supernaturally endowed creature. It denies that the spirit of man is supernaturally bestowed, or that man is a living spirit. The explanation of this negative atti- tude is revealed in the following. If man were super- naturally endowed, then his gifts would be involution- ary. If his gifts were involutionary, then the foundation of Organic evolution would be destroyed. This is evi- dent when one remembers that Organic evolution out- laws involution. The presence of the latter unques- tionably discredits the former. The two processes are absolutely diametrical. A contrast between the teaching of Organic evolution and of Christianity concerning man is pertinent at this point. Organic evolution insists that man is a learning animal. Christianity contends that man is a living spirit. With the one, man entered upon his human so- journ without knowledge. With the other, man began life with great wisdom. With the one, man’s early environ- ment was harsh and perilous. With the other, man’s early environment was peaceful and plenteous. With the first, man’s pathway was up and out. With the second, man’s pathway descended into the valleys. With [103] Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHristIan? the first, man is naturally good. With the second, man was good only before the fall. Orthodox Christians maintain that man rejected the counsel of God, substi- tuted his own will for the sovereignty of heaven, and consequently fell from the holy and happy state in which he was created. Thus, the race entered upon a new plane of behavior known as carnality. The sinless man before the fall became the sinful man after the fall. Organic evolution, in rejecting the doctrine of the fall, further denies human endowments from above. It assumes that man is an end-result of an evolutionary process and that he is simply a learning animal. It is pointed out that his life activities have been, are, and ever shall be climbing activities. To illustrate, it teaches that when man became a human animal he was higher than he was when he was merely an ape; that when he attained one thought, he was higher than he was when he had none; that when he approved ideas he was higher than he was when he had no code; that when he developed religious concepts he was higher than he was when he had no religion; and that when he developed monotheistic worship he was higher than he was when he worshipped many gods. Thus, it appears that man’s pathway has been up and out. This school of thinkers boldly claims that the only fall that man ever had was a fall upward. In rejecting the fall, Organic evolution also outlaws the doctrine of sin through the fall. Now, if man never fell, there can be no such a thing as inherent depravity ; and if no inherent depravity, then the Bible doctrine of — sin becomes a mere myth. Accordingly, if Organie evo- [104] PasstnGc oF CHRISTIAN DocTRINE lution outlaws the doctrine of a fall, it destroys the doc- trine of sin through the fall. In destroying the doctrine of the fall and the doctrine of sin through the fall, Organic evolution assumes the natural goodness of the individual. This assumption reduces man to the plane of the animal and consigns his sins unto the category of mistakes or mal-adjustments. The fallacy of the doctrine of the infallibility of original nature was revealed in Chapter I. A further discussion of it is not necessary here. Supernatural Manifestations Organic evolution outlaws the doctrine of super- natural manifestations or revelations. The reason for this is obvious. As previously seen, there cannot be in- volution in evolution. Revelation manifestly implies a process from without to within, and it is definitely ex- emplified in God’s Bi-Nomial Word—the Message and the Messenger, or the Bible and its Christ. In the first place, Organic evolution outlaws the Bible. As hitherto noted, such evolution teaches that the Bible is not God’s revealed will to man, but that it is a humanly created book containing ideals, standards, cus- toms, and traditions by which the race measures and sanctions its conduct. Now, if the Bible is no more than man ‘‘feeling out for the Infinite, not the Infinite re- vealing Himself to man,’’ if it is but a humanly evolved Book, then the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures falls flat, and the very most that can be said for it is that it ‘‘contains the word of God.’’ Organic evolution teaches that the Bible contains mistakes, ele- ments of myth, and traditions. Accordingly, it is a [105] Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? false guide, a retrogressive influence, and an encourager of immoralities among the sons of men. In outlawing the Bible, it outlaws the miraculous con- tent of the Word of God. In assuming that the Bible is but a human product, any avowed manifestations of God become mere mental figments. Thus, the story of the Ark, Jonah and the Whale, the Handwriting on the Wall, the Translation of Enoch and Elijah, the Trans- figuration on the Mount, the Appearance of Christ to Paul on the way to Damascus, and the Apocalypse, are all mere mental abstractions, fabricated by fertile imag- inations, approved by earth’s sojourners, and handed down to unthinking religious worshippers. In the second place, Organic evolution outlaws the doctrine of the God-man. If the incarnation is a fact, it is admittedly a miraculous one. As would be ex- pected, Organic evolutionists offer strenuous objections to this profesedly miraculous event. First, they oppose it because it would violate the selective functions of natural law. Second, because it would interfere with the normal functions of natural processes. And third, be- cause it would be none other than a supernatural phe- nomenon. Organic evolutionists distinctly taboo revelations of every nature. As a rule, they have a great antipathy toward accepting Christ as God revealed. They claim that such a doctrine smacks of the mystic, the wondrous, the magic, and the idolatrous. Accordingly, Christ- worship is distinctly idolatrous and irrational. Notwithstanding such evolutionary leadings, no honest- minded student of the Bible can fail to observe its super- natural teachings. When it says, ‘‘The Lord formed [106] Passine oF Curistian Doctrine man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of lfe, and man became a living soul,’’ he doubts not that it represents an act which transcends any possible functions of natural law. The dominance of the human character clearly illustrates this. When the Bible says, ‘‘So he drove out the man and he placed at the East of the Garden of Eden cheru- bim and a flaming sword which turned every way to keep the way of the Tree of Life,’’ he doubts not that it is declaring the fall of man. When it says, ‘‘He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed,’’ he doubts not that God promises redemption to a fallen race. And when the Scriptures say, ‘‘Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, for unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior which is Christ the Lord,”’ he doubts not that the promises of redemption made in the Old Testament are being fulfilled. Orthodox Christianity maintains that it was man’s badness and not his goodness which brought Jesus from Heaven, and that it was man’s sin, and not his un- selfishness, which caused the Searchlight of Omniscience to be given unto benighted sons of men. Christianity asserts that man’s sin produces spiritual darkness, and thus occasions the necessity for God’s revelation of light. It asserts that man in darkness needs light; that man in the wilderness needs a guide; that man on the breakers needs a lighthouse; and that wayfaring man in the mazes of life needs a chart and compass. It further claims that God, in meeting these needs, reveals His [107] Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? Word and discloses His Son; hence, the Bi-Nomial Word is God’s revelation to a needy race. The Bible is manifestly a book of revelations. It is Heaven’s light for earth’s spiritual night. It is God’s information for a spiritually unenlightened race. It re- veals the mind and heart of God to the mind and heart of man. It is fully inspired of God, and is revealed to men through human instrumentalities; thus, it is involution- ary, not evolutionary. | To sum up, Organic evolution outlaws revelation and inspiration. Under its influence the Holy Bible loses divine nature and takes on human tone. It becomes merely a book of myth, or of traditions, or of ethical ideals. Under its influence the ideal, Christ, the God- man, is frayed and frazzled, the doctrine of blood re- demption is regularly ridiculed, and the rule of divine grace is contemptuously tabooed. Supernatural Redemption According to Organic evolution, salvation is essentially a human achievement. It is simply cultural develop- ment, or an end-result of the learning process. Accord- ingly, salvation comes through a process of reducing ethical knowledge to objective expression. In the last analysis, it is an earthly and ethical manner of living, or a humane habit of acting. Such a state is obviously part personal and part social. At any stage of develop- ment cultural salvation, strictly speaking, is a human achievement. | By way of contrast, orthodox Christianity maintains that salvation is from above. It contends that it is an end-result of an involutionary process in which God [108] ae Passine oF CHRISTIAN DocTRINE from without induces repentance and faith within, and through Christ applies the spiritual blood which cleanses man’s heart from sin and purges his spirit of dross. To recapitulate, let no one forget that if there was no fall there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no need of a savior. If there is no need of a savior, there is no need of the Christ. If there is no need of the Christ, there is no need of the Cross. If there is no need of the Cross, there is no need of the blood. If there is no need of the blood, there is no life. Hence, the acceptance of Organic evolution means the death of Christianity. Organic evolution, in destroying these treasuries of truth, emasculates Christianity of every basic principle and absolutely outlaws supernaturalism in redemption. Supernatural Rewards Orgame evolution outlaws the doctrine of Heaven and Hell. In short, it denies the existence of another world in which an assize could be set up to render judgment concerning deeds done in the body. In outlawing a heavenly assize, it destroys the rewards, which come as the result of judgment. In denying the attainment of heaven, a place of joy, peace, and rest, a place where moth doth not corrupt or thieves do not break in and steal, a place of crowns and responsibility, this evolu- tionary hypothesis sounds a death knell to human hopes. In denying the existence of Hell, a place where sin is punished and justice is meted out according to the deeds of the flesh, a place where eternal suffering, re- morse, and despair obtain, a place where human spirits quake and quail before the punishment received, it com- pletely outlaws the reign of justice. Such evolution can [109] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? do nothing less than deny the existence of Heaven and Hell, because it denies the existence of spirit worlds. Therefore, eternal rewards are all tabooed. Concerning the influence of Organic evolution upon the whole of orthodox doctrine, KE. Y. Mullins, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in his book, ‘‘Christianity at the Cross Roads,’’ interpreting the naturalism of Professor W. H. Wood, Dartmouth College, revealed in the latter’s book, ‘‘The Religion of Science,’’ says: ‘‘The supernatural is excluded. ‘‘The soul is not an independent entity which sur- vives death and is immortal. ‘Man is a higher animal of the order of primates, closely related to the Chimpanzee, but with a higher degree of mentality. ‘‘Nature only is immortal in its material elements. ‘‘Human progress is to be realized by improving heredity and by education in social ideals. ‘“The doctrine of individual salvation leads astray. Race preservation is the ideal. ‘‘A scientist may be religious. But his religion will be not emotional but rational. ‘‘EKvolution conceives God as immanent in nature. ‘“Nature is everything that is. ‘Miracles, the inspiration of the Bible, and related teachings are false. ‘‘True religion deals with this world not the next. Greater justice, peace, and altruism on earth are the true goal.’’ To sum up, it has been seen that the Organic evolution- ary concept challenges the very heart and structure of Supernaturalism. In destroying God it destroys His [110] Passine oF Curistian DoctrRINE word. In destroying His Word, it destroys the doctrines contained in it. In the first place, it outlaws the con- cept of God a person, a triune being, an Infinite Intelli- gence, powerful and loving, who supervises the ways and works of the universe. In the second place, it out- laws the doctrine of man, a free moral agent, a person- ality supernaturally endowed, a creature who by volun- tary transgression fell from the holy and happy state in which he was created and thus entailed upon his kind suffering and death, and a creature who can be redeemed by an involutionary process, initiated and effected by an Infinite Personality, all-wise and loving. In the third place, it outlaws the doctrine of revelations. It main- tains that God, granting the existence of deity, could not supernaturally reveal Himself. Thus, the revela- tions of the Bible with its Christ are delusionary. In the fourth place, it denies the inspiration of the Bible and asserts that its contents are merely mental illumina- tions. And in the fifth place, it outlaws the doctrine of eternal pleasure, and suffering, which comes as a reward for the deeds done in the body. The contrast between religious teaching of Organic evolution and orthodox Christianity is indeed very significant. According to Organic evolution, in the beginning natural law. According to orthodox Christianity, in the beginning Infinite Life. According to Organic evolution, in the beginning acci- dental creation. According to orthodox Christianity, in the beginning purposed creation. According to Organic evolution, from the beginning [111] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? human nature infallible. According to orthodox Chris- tianity, from the fall human nature depraved. According to Organic evolution, from the beginning a climbing race. According to orthodox Christianity, from the beginning a fallen race. According to Organic evolution, from the beginning sin a mistake. According to orthodox Christianity, from the beginning sin a crime. According to Organic evolution, from the beginning salvation by culture. According to orthodox Chris- tianity, from the beginning salvation by Christ. According to Organic evolution, the Cross of Christ is a symbol of shame. According to orthodox Chris- tianity, the Cross is a symbol of glory. According to Organic evolution, death brings extine- tion. According to orthodox Christianity, death brings endless joy or despair. According to Organic evolution, Christ worship is enslaving. According to orthodox Christianity, Christ worship is saving. In the face of the above data, what attitude should ‘Christians assume toward the challenges of time-honored and beloved orthodox doctrines, doctrines which have been universally approved and tested in point of time? Should orthodox Christians sit idly by and witness aliens enter the commonwealth of Israel to do violence to their time-honored treasures, to junk the Bible for man-made manuals, to turn men away from the greatest reality of all the ages, Jesus Christ, the Savior and Lord, to the blind and heartless leadings of natural law? Nay, let orthodox Christians stand for God, an Infinite Person- ality, supreme in intelligence, power, and love! Let [112] Passtna oF CHristian DocrrRINnE them stand for God, a triune Being, an Infinite Father, a loving Son, a measureless Comforter! Let them stand for the absolute truths which the eternal doctrines of the Book of God disclose! Shall orthodox Christian doctrine pass from the earth? A complete substitution of Organic evolution for supernaturalism would mark the death of the im- mortal doctrines of the Scriptures. Organic evolution and Christianity are two antipodal systems of thought. Christianity dies just in proportion as Organic evolu- tion lives. Enter Organic evolution, exit Christian doctrine! [113] CHAPTER VI Finite Versus the Infinite HE passing of Christian doctrine under the influ- liars of evolution brings the race face to face with the imperative of choice. Admitting its sovereignty, the race must choose between itself and an absolute God. It must commit its destiny unto finite creatures or unto an Infinite Personality. Shall the race accept the dictum of Auguste Comte, which deifies humanity and bids the race trust itself? Or shall it accept the dictum of Jehovah God, which proclaims the deity of Christ Jesus and bids the race to trust Him? The thoughtful will admit that the ultimate state of man must be determined either by the potency of finite beings or by the omnipotency of a Supreme Being. Concerning the ultimate state of man, thinkers uni- versally agree that the goal of life is perfection. Nothing short of such an ideal satisfies the logic of reason and the demands of the human conscience. Is there such an ultimate state? Or, is perfection a mythical utopia falling entirely beyond the bounds of human experience ? In spite of the fact that such a state has hitherto failed to obtain among men, the life of the race has been, and is, more or less dedicated to the task of realizing it. The message of our forbears declares the existence of such an Klysia. The voice of our confreres asserts the ex- [114] Finite VERSUS THE INFINITE istence of an ultimate utopia. The witness of our dying attests the fact of a home over there. Granting the existence of an eternity in which sin, mal-adjustments, and suffering are no more, the problem at once arises, How may such a state be attained? In response to this question, two schools of thought imme- diately present answers. The first, the naturalistic school, Organic evolution- ists, submits that the race can only attain such a state through the exercise of its own powers in accordance with the laws of nature. It declares that the race in and of itself possesses adequate equipment for an ascent unto the planes of perfection. It asserts that its energy, knowledge, and morality are in themselves adequate guarantees for such a climb, and that humanity may, with confidence and security, rely completely upon them. It contends that perfection is but an end-result of a natural process, and that an intelligent yielding to the leadings of natural law would ultimately produce a state of perfection in the life of the race. The second, the supernaturalistic school, submits that the race cannot in and of itself realize a state of perfec- tion. It declares that humanity is impotent to attain such a state; that its energy, knowledge, and morality are inadequate dynamics to transplant the race from a plane of imperfection to a plane of perfection; and that sin in frustrating the function of natural law, renders man incapable of maintaining perfect actions. Super- naturalists contend that Christ alone can re-make, re- motivate, and re-direct the race and in turn guarantee its suecessful transit from the world of carnality to the world of glorified immortality. Moreover, they insist, [115] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? on the one hand, that the gulf existing between imper- fection and perfection is humanly impassable since human energy and labor are impotent to span it, and they insist, on the other hand, that the Cross of Christ with its incomparable and inexplicable reaches alone can bridge the chasm between these two planes of reality. As to the confessions of the two schools, both claim power. On the one hand, naturalists, while claiming a oreat function for law, hesitatingly admit that man’s life and labors universally disclose limitations, and that his activities fall far short of perfection. On the other hand, supernaturalists assert that God is omnipotent; that all power both in Heaven and in earth are His; that the astral worlds reside in the palm of his hands; and that all of the forces of the universe are directed by Him. According to the above claims, the strength of the one is relative and the strength of the other is absolute. As to their confessions, both schools claim knowledge. On the one hand, naturalists assert the efficacy of knowl- edge. They insist that a dissemination of ethical cul- ture would cure human ills. Accordingly, ‘‘ Knowledge is virtue.’’ Bacon and many European Encyclopaedists sought earnestly to demonstrate the infinity of human intelligence. Such efforts culminated in dismal failures, and, as a consequence, pansophism was universally dis- credited. Thoughtful people regretfully admit the limi- tations of human mentations. On the other hand, super- naturalists assert the omniscience of God. They insist that He is absolute in understanding. To Him the achievements of our yesterdays, the activities of our to- days, and the eventualities of our tomorrows are all [116] FInire Versus THE INFINITE present. ‘‘He is the same yesterday, today, and for- ever.’’ They furthermore, insist that the intelligent forms, forces, and functions of the universe root them- selves in God; that the whole of these factors disclose infinite plans and purposes; that the efficiency of His administration is reflected in the perfect functions of the heavens; and that the complete unity of all of the many activities of the universe is a marvel of His glory. According to the above claims, the knowledge of the one is relative and the knowledge of the other is absolute. As to their confessions, both schools claim loving watch-care. On the one hand, naturalists assert that the heart of the race manifests itself in child-caring, pro- visioning, and protecting activities, and that its other- regarding impulses constitute the genetic conditions for ‘the race’s goodness. A survey of human activities and relationships clearly demonstrates that man does not love his neighbor as himself, and that he falls far short of perfection in his attitudes and activities toward his fellow man. The indifference, the vice, the crime, and the heartlessness of mankind, everywhere disclosed in the life of humanity, indict human nature and compel the thoughtful to conclude that the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Historically and actually, man is ravishly selfish and imperfectly good. On the other hand, supernaturalists assert the omnipresence of God. They insist that He never wavers in His fidelity toward human creatures, and that He watches and ministers eternally unto the sons of men. It is confidently asserted that His watch- care is so universal and so complete that no tear, no anguish, no grief ever exists without His knowledge, and [117] Can An Evouurionist BE A CHRISTIAN ? that no unfortunates are ever denied the ministrations of His love and grace. God is absolutely good. According to the above claims, the goodness of the one is relative and the goodness of the other is absolute. While the contrasts between the two schools are defi- nite and significant, yet there is a point of agreement. Both schools admit that law manifests itself in energy, mind, and moral consciousness. They disagree, however, as to the ability of these factors to hift man unto the plane of perfection. The real issue is: ‘‘Is Homo- Sapiens sufficient unto himself? Or is an Infinite Per- sonality necessary for human succor?’’ The reader is invited to attend carefully the claims of the two schools of thought which follow below. Is Man Sufficient Unto Himself? Can man attain perfection in and of himself? Do past experiences, current events, and logic demonstrate © the sufficiency of Homo-Sapiens? Does the race possess native equipment adequate to guarantee its journey to the realm of perfection? What is the race’s equipment for such a travel? An inventory shows that humanity possesses energy, mind, and morality. Are these mental and physical factors sufficient in themselves to lift man out of imperfection into perfection? Are these agencies of effort adequate to realize a perfect utopia? An analysis of man’s native equipment for behavior ought to disclose the ability of the race to help itself. Admuttedly, man possesses strength. Is it sufficient unto itself? Is it commensurate with man’s task? Is it capable of lifting man to planes supernal ? Three factors witness concerning man’s power to [118] Finite VERSUS THE INFINITE achieve; namely, History, Current Events, and Logic. History offers negative evidence. From time imme- morial unto this hour, man has deinonstrated his ability to do within limits. He has measurably demonstrated his power to master and control external forces of nature, but he has miserably failed to control himself. That history verifies this judgment, no discerning reader ean deny. Alexander the Great conquered the world, and in turn became a victim of his own passions. Napoleon Bonaparte mastered Europe, and in turn be- came a victim of his inordinate desire for more power. The Hohenzollerns educationally and economically won a place in the sun, and in turn became victims of their desires to force men to admit it. Thus it ever is, history witnesses. A survey of human activities shows them to be laden with mishap. Human living has been and is a multipli- cation of tragedy. Why should the race, knowing its weaknesses, trust none other than itself? Why should it commit itself, without reference to eternity, to the ways of death? Historical data unquestionably disclose human energy to be incommensurate with human need. Current activities offer negative evidence. The events of this hour constitute undeniable evidence of man’s im- potency to lift himself out of himself. The regnancy of war, of vice, of crime, of race suicide, and of death are undeniable witnesses to human weaknesses, and incon- testable evidences of man’s imperfection. The voice of the present asserts human limitations, and importunes the race to look not unto itself for succor. The testimony of present-day events denies the power of man to succor himself. [119] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? Logic also offers negative evidence. It is readily ad- mitted that man is potentially equipped for many good ~ habits. Yet it must be admitted that he is potentially equipped to form many bad ones. This means, of course, that man is naturally part good and part bad. Mentally speaking, there is just as much psychology for the forma- tion and retention of unsocial bonds as there is for the formation and retention of ideal-social ones. Logic asserts that the nature of man reflects itself in human experience and that man can lift himself but to the summit of his own strength. Since man is admittedly imperfect, he can lift himself but to the summit of his own imperfections. Therefore, it follows that if the race trust its destiny to itself, then it is destined to tread the planes of imperfection forever and ever. Admittedly, man possesses knowledge. Is it commen- surate with his needs? Can the race through its intel- lections, emotions, and volitions, lift itself out of its own imperfections? The answer to this question must depend upon the nature and the function of knowledge. As just observed, the nature of knowledge is conditioned upon the nature of man. Since man is an imperfect being, any knowledge derived through his imperfect nature would manifestly be imperfect. Some knowledge is admittedly good, but all knowledge is not good. A review of human achievements shows vice and crime, intrigue and death, flourishing in every social order. Some ethics is good, but all ethics is not good. There has never been, nor is there today, a rationalistie eulture so refined but that the foulest and the basest and the srossest deeds obtain in it. [120] Euntte Versus THE INFINITE If man can lift himself to planes supernal by means of knowledge or approved human judgments, then why not lead the race to commit to memory scientific treatises and the Scripture’s decalogue, and in turn conform its activities to their idealistic leadings? The answer to the question is: Mere knowledge and ethics do not provide the motive power necessary to guarantee their transla- tion into actuality. The race’s greatest need is not men- tation but motivation. Empirically, human knowledge is impotent to lift the race out of itself. Accordingly, humanity is doomed to tread the imperfect ways of car- nality henceforth and forever. Admittedly, man possesses morality. Is it sufficient unto itself? Is it commensurate with man’s needs? Is human nature and human perfection all that the heart of man covets? Individual introspections disclose inter- esting reactions. To the thoughtful, inward perceptions inevitably bring a sense of sham, shame, and emptiness. The introspecting individual sees himself rejecting moral obligations, spurning altruistic motives, ignoring oppor- tunities to scatter sunshine, impugning the purposes of his fellow man, refusing to love his neighbor as himself, reversing moral codes by instructing youths to do others before they do them, and indulging in hate, strife, envy, jealousy, suspicion, wars, and race suicide. Empirically, the race demonstrates its moral impotence. Its tabooes and sanctions reflect the imperfections of their makers. Accordingly, the race trusting its own morality, is doomed to travel the alluring and tragic pathways of selfishness and death. Now, experience shows that man’s energy, mind, and morality are impotent in their liftings and inadequate [121] Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? in their leadings to bring man unto the planes of per- fection. Thus, is it not reasonable to conclude that man is insufficient unto himself and that human activities are limited by carnal nature to the planes of imperfection ? But, evolutionists obtrude an objection here. They insist that since man is a learning creature, he could be led to taboo unsocial activities and to sanction only ideal- social ones. They insist that through such a process he could attain in point of time a state of perfection. But, do facts belie their contentions ? Relative to these claims, the first embarrassing situa- tion which Organic evolutionists face is, that knowledge has hitherto failed to demonstrate its saving potency. The illustration of this statement is disclosed in the following: According to evolutionary contentions, hun- dreds of thousands of years have looked down upon the learning process of human beings. Granting that the race is potentially equipped to eliminate the unsocial and to approve the ideal-social, would it not be reason- able to expect the race, after such millenniums of expe- rience, to stand today emasculated of its weaknesses, and complete in its mental achievements and in its moral controls? If the natural leading of knowledge is toward perfection, would it not be reasonable to expect an in- crease of knowledge to mean a corresponding decrease in human weaknesses? Moreover, would not an increase in the ideational content of the race tend to purge human nature of its unsocial aspects? But what do the idea- tional increases disclose? Perfection? No! Universal love? No! Eternal peace? No! This day discloses vice and crime, murder and intrigue, greed and graft, envy and hate, suspicion and doubt, deviltry and death [122] FINITE VERSUS THE INFINITE everywhere regnant. But few times during the history of humanity has the life of a human being been worth so little, or law so completely irreverenced. In the light of these facts, what can men say for the redemptive role of knowledge? If knowledge is redemptive, how can thinking people avoid concluding that human beings are universally mighty dull creatures? Human experience manifestly belies a redemptive role for knowledge. Relative to the above claims, the second embarrassing situation which Organic evolutionists face is, that knowl- edge cannot succor. As previously observed, all knowl- edge reflects the nature of its creator. Since man is admittedly an imperfect creature, any knowledge derived through his experience would reflect his own imperfec- tions. Hence, man through his own knowledge could lift himself but as high as himself. Scientifically speak- ing, knowledge would thus appear to be impotent to “succor. According to actual human experience, does not race history affirm this? Does not our own age, the wisest one in all of the annals of history, disclose the basest and the foulest deeds ever known to man? Are not the events of the World War incontrovertible witnesses to the impotency of knowledge to succor? In the light of facts, Organic evolutionists must admit that knowledge cannot succor the race. Science also affirms the conclusion that race activities are limited to the planes of its own nature. According to laboratory findings, a body will lie in the same posi- tion forever unless operated upon by forces external to it. Again, a moving object will go on in the same direc- tion forever unless operated upon by a force or forces [123] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? extrinsic to it. It logically follows that any change in its direction would not be due to forces resident in the moving object, but to forces extrinsic to it. Again, science claims that like begets like. If so, the best that could possibly come out of an imperfect race is an im- perfect progeny, and the best that could come out of an imperfect progeny is an imperfect destiny. Granting man’s imperfection, science must conclude that the destiny and the doom of the race in and of itself is an eternity of chaos and night. The above findings do not license Organic evolution- ists to say, ‘‘Let man help himself. Let him lft himself by his own bootstraps.’’ Granting the existence of an Infinite Personality, does it not appear that man is un- wise in rejecting Him and in committing himself unto the ways of self? Reader friend, lift up your eyes and witness an age-long drama, a panorama tragic and dis- appointing. The race universally dissipates its energies, misapplies its intelligence, and consumes its morality. Its impotence is universally limned against the horizon of human experience. You have but to lift your eyes to behold the race, bathed in tears, baptized in anguish, and bivouacked in grief. Is there no escape from such a living tragedy? Is man doomed to die in his own misery? Is there no way to wipe his tears, to allay his anguish, and to assuage his grief? ‘‘Is there no balm in Gilead?’’ Do you not admit, Reader friend, if man’s succor is absolutely resident in himself, that the race is doomed to perpetual tears, anguish, and grief? What a commentary upon the function and fruitage of natural law! Think of it! A race doomed to eternal misery, undying despair, moral dearth, everlasting death! If [124] FINITE VERSUS THE INFINITE energy, mind, and morality fail to succor, if experience demonstrates the impotency of the race to lift itself out of imperfection into perfection, and if all things earthly and human fail, then what? Obviously, man’s only alternative is to invoke Heaven? Judgment of Reason, Conscience, and Heart Is an Absolute Personality—infinite energy, absolute knowledge, and perfect conscience—necessary to lead the race unto perfection? Does not human weakness importune help? As the babe importunes guidance and succor at the hands of one who can, does not even so the race? The mental, moral, and spiritual urges of hu- manity seek liberation. The mind cries out for release, the heart for deliverance, and the soul for succor. In some way or another, humanity perpetually importunes deliverance and longs for a dwelling place on high. As previously seen, the race confesses the inadequacy of its power, knowledge, and moral consciousness to guar- antee the realization of perfection. It thus follows that if humanity is ever to dwell in Beulah’s land, that such a supernal existence must be guaranteed by a power, mind, and conscience which transcends its own. Ob- viously then, the realization of race succor can only be guaranteed by the work of an Infinite Personality. Thus, God in man is the hope of the world. This conclusion is attested by three witnesses ; namely, Reason, Conscience, and Heart. In the first place, Reason insists that the existence of an Absolute Personality is writ in the very nature of the universe. It declares that order implies the existence of an orderer; that designs imply the existence of a de- [125] Can An Evouvutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? signer; that plans imply the existence of a planner; and that blue prints imply the existence of an architect. It further insists that if order, designs, plans, and blue prints exist which could not have been made by man, that such planful forms must have been made by a Transcendent Being; hence, the order, the designs, the plans, and the blue prints of the universe imply the existence of an Infinite God. In the second place, Conscience insists that the exis- tence of an Infinite Personality is essential to guarantee justice. It points out that the life of the race has been a floundering one; that its walk has been a law-breaking one; and that its pathway has ever been marked by in- justice. Conscience contends that these floundering and law-breaking activities have produced oppression, repres- sion, and suppression, and that as a consequence injus- tice has marked the footsteps of men. | It persistently maintains that there must be two eter- nities, the one as a reward for virtue, and the other as a reward for vice. Moreover, it insists that right and wrong cannot have the same rewards. Obviously then, if you sow vice you will reap vice; if you sow virtue you will reap virtue; if you sow crime you will reap crime; if you sow godlessness you will reap godlessness; if you sow righteousness you will reap righteousness. Now, according to this law of the harvest, vice and virtue can- not have the same rewards. Conscience maintains that for justice to reign su- premely, rewards must be judiciously and meritoriously bestowed. Now, since man is unquestionably imperfect, it follows that there must be an Infinite Arbiter to righteously adjudge and dispense rewards. Conscience [126] Finite VERSUS THE INFINITE asserts that Christ absolutely satisfied the demand of justice on the Cross. He suffered the just for the unjust that the demand of law might be eternally satisfied. Conscience insists that such a vicarious offering was necessary in order to guarantee the reign of justice. In bearing in His body the sins of the world, He atoned for all sins. Hence, it concludes that an Infinite God alone could guarantee the reign of justice among men. In the third place, the Heart insists that the existence of an Infinite Personality is necessary in order to guar- antee mercy. As above seen, the Conscience asserts that sin must be punished in order to satisfy justice. Now, the Heart declares that man must forgive in order to satisfy mercy. Law, on the one hand, clamors for jus- tice, while Heart, on the other hand, clamors for mercy. The facts are that a vicarious offering to satisfy justice was necessary and antecedent to the establishment of mercy; that a substitutionary atonement paved the way for the execution of merey; and that it is only through the execution of mercy that the race is able to escape the fetters of injustice. In short, it takes mercy to make law just and justice to guarantee mercy. God, seeing, the sham, shame, emptiness, hypocrisy, and injustice of humanity, put on flesh, bared His heart, received the sword thrust of sin, and died on Calvary in order to satisfy eternally the demands of justice and make for- ever a way for the absolute claims of mercy. Thus, through satisfying justice he shuts the gates of Hell, and through satisfying mercy He opens the gates of Heaven. The Heart declares that the life and labors of such an Infinite Personality is necessary in order to lft man out of himself, and to environ the redeemed [127] Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? with the solaces of love. It thus appears that it takes the sacrifice of infinite love, to bring the alienated heart of man and the loving soul of God into unison and fellow- ship. Thus, the heart asserts that an Infinite Person- ality is necessary for the atonement. The above study discloses Reason, Conscience, and Heart demanding the existence of an Infinite Personality in order to satisfy the needs and existing facts of life. Infinite Personality is antecedent to finite people. Since God’s power is greater than man’s, it is only through His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence that the race finds a guarantee for its succor. Thus, a state of perfection can be realized, not by law, but by Infinite Life. Sufficiency of Homo-Christus The author at this time desires to introduce his friend, Homo-Christus, to the reader of these lines. It has been observed that Mind, Heart, and Conscience insist that there must be one who possesses infinite power, knowl- edge, and love. These demands are all satisfied by the personality of Jesus Christ. He satisfies every rightful claim of life. Does the race need power? Christ possesses it. In Him all things consist or hold together. It is He who controls the heavens, determines the lines of its activities, and swings heavenly bodies through infinite space along countless paths. It is He who fixes their goings, estab- lishes their relationships, and determines their functions. In fact, all power, both in heaven and earth, are His, He is the omnipotent God in the flesh. Does the race need mind? He possesses it. He is all- [128] FINITE VERSUS THE INFINITE wise. All things are present to Him. Every impulse, every thought, and every act of our yesterdays, our to- days, and our tomorrows are now with Him. He knows all. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. By virtue of His knowledge, He is intellectually elite, the first citizen of the universe. He is the ommscient God im the flesh. Does the race need care and guidance? He guarantees it. He is all love and watch-care. No sparrow falls from the heavens that His all-seeing eye does not observe. No hair upon the head is unnumbered. He sees; He saves; He serves. He is the faithful watchman of eter- nity. He environs the race with winged creatures by day and by night. He supples the physical needs of the race out of His bounty. He supports the race with His blood and strength. He is the omnipresent God in the flesh. Christ, in satisfying the demands of the intellect, in satisfying the decrees of the conscience, and in satisfying the importunities of the heart, provides for the race eternal joy, peace, and rest. Thus, it appears that Homo-Christus possesses the power necessary to trans- form the race, and in turn translate its imperfections into perfections. ‘‘When this mortal shall have put on immortality and this corruptible shall have put on in- corruption then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.’’ The Apostle Paul discloses Christ as our sufficiency, and declares that it is through Him, and Him alone, that the race can hope to find succor and salvation. [129] Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? ‘All hail the power of Jesus’ name, Let angels prostrate fall, Bring forth the royal diadem, And crown Him Lord of all.’’ Since there is a God who thought out the universe, who created the astral worlds out of zeros, who hung the stars upon nothing, and who bound them together in- extricably with lines of invisible and intangible energy, such a God in such activities deserves serious considera- tion. Since there is a God who adorns the universe with in- comparable beauty, who combines light rays into rain- bows of matchless splendor, and who clothes the flower with rosettes of gorgeous hues, such a God in such activi- ties deserves complete adoration. Since there is a God who gave every planet an indi- vidual orbit, who set every star in a panoply of glory, who caused every heavenly body to co-operate with every other heavenly body in translating the sun’s light into the life of man, such a God deserves loving devotion. Since there is a God who robbed Heaven of His Son, who beheld His suffering among men, and who bared His heart to the sword thrust of sin that enslaved mortals might escape their chains, such a God in such activities deserves absolute trust. Since there is a God who commandeered the hosts of Heaven, who trained the choral society of the skies, and who placed the heavenly singers at the gates eternal to sing well-done plaudits to the redeemed among men, such a God in such a role deserves absolute devotion, adora- tion, trust, and worship. [130] CHAPTER VII Christ a Fact or Fancy N the concluding section of the preceding chapter, the author presented Christ Jesus in the role of satisfying the claims of absolute power, understanding, and love. Does such a role misrepresent facts? Were the claims made for Him fanciful or factual? What think ye of Christ? In response to the last question, two present-day schools of thought aforetime mentioned submit answers. The naturalistic school, championed by evolutionists, maintains that Christ is but a man. The supernatural- istic school, championed by orthodox Christians, con- tends that Christ is the God-man. To the first, such a Christ is nothing more than a mental figment or a mere fancy. To the second, such a Christ sums up absolute reality. The first asserts that such a Christ would inter- fere with the harmonious functions of natural law. The second asserts that such a Christ is necessary to guaran- tee the harmonious functions of all law. Facing the above claims, the earnest seeker-after- truth asks, ‘‘ What is the truth of the matter? Is Christ, the God-man, a fact or a fanecy?’’ In order to satisfy the enquirer, it becomes necessary to survey the evidence submitted in support of the different claims by each school of thought. Christ a Fancy The naturalistic school submits the following argu- [131] Can An Evoxutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? ments in support of its claim that Christ, the God-man, is but a fancy. First, naturalists contend that the God-man is un- necessary. The reason for this contention grows out of | the premise that law alone creates, controls, and crowns. As to creation, disciples of naturalism, Organic evolu- tionists, maintain that the forms, forces, and functions appearing in the life of the universe are but end-results of nature’s selective processes and that humanity climax- ing an almost interminable series of mutations is but an end-result of natural selection—mental, physical, and spiritual powers thus appear as mere evolutions. Grant- ing this creative claim, then there is no need for Christ to be other than the Son of man. As to control, the disciples of naturalism, Organic evolutionists, contend that the forms, forces, and func- tions of the universe have been evolved under the guid- ance of natural law as the supreme governor of the universe. Granting this, the role of a supernatural Christ would not only become unnecessary but would be an un- warranted interference with nature’s processes. Such external control, it is declared, would tend to produce chaos in the universe and doubt in the minds of orderly thinking people. These disciples of evolution submit that if nature’s processes are selective, and that if the weaker are gradu- ally eliminated through struggle, then the natural result of such a selective process would be the gradual emer- gence and the survival of the fittest. They claim that Christ, as a factor of control, was but a man with a superior intellect, an intellect whose functions were so profound as to enable Him to glean the ethical and re- [132] ——————— a g Curist A Fact on Fancy ligious messages of the ages, correlate them into a new system of religious thought, and organize the same into an Ethical Theism for the social amelioration of the race. In such activities Christ appeared, not as a deity, but as a super-man, not as a miraculous being, but as one with super-physical power. These disciples of evolution also submit that Christ’s words and deeds fell at times into questionable cate- gories. Obviously, such mistaken activities would dis- qualify Him to be God, and would outlaw absolute lead- ership for Him. Accordingly, the race creates its own fetters when it surrenders its will to Him who, according to the Bible, transformed a cross of shame into a symbol of hope and glory. These disciples of evolution further submit that if the selective processes of nature are upward, that such a role -would ultimately realize perfection in man. That being true, redemption becomes something that is social, not individual. Thus, it appears that salvation roots itself not in a single personality but in the life and labors of many persons; not in special creation but in the intelli- gent learning processes of the race. Hence, Organic evolution outlaws the need of an absolute controlling Christ. As to crowns, the disciples of naturalism, Organic evolutionists, insist that beauty, strength, and goodness are end-results of natural selection; that natural law crowns the vegetable kingdom with fruit and flowers, the animal kingdom with sinews and strength, and the human kingdom with honor and goodness. Now, if beauty, strength, and goodness are end-results of natural selection, and direct products of law in function, then [133] Can An Evouvutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? Christ, an Infinite Personalitv, living to crown life with beauty, strength, and goodness, becomes unnecessary. Thus Organic evolution outlaws the need of a crowning Christ. Now, if the created forms, the controlled forces, and the crown functions of the universe are simply natural phenomena, then Organic evolutionists are eminently right in claiming that Christ, the God-man, is not needed. If Christ, our Infinite God, is not needed, then His claim to deity becomes a mental figment or intel- lectual fancy. Granting law to be creating, controlling, and crowning, the thoughtful will all agree that a super- natural Christ is unnecessary. Second, Organic evolutionists maintain that a role for the God-man would be a positive interference with the processes of the universe. Such a contention must be eranted if nature’s processes are simply from within to without, and never from without to within. Accord- ingly, any external influence would manifestly be a hindrance to nature’s unfolding. ‘‘No influence that works in opposition to this de- velopment (that of original nature) and to the law of the inheritance of racial traits in order can ever reach a suitable adaptation, but only disturbs the natural course of development, and creates abnormal, misdirected en- deavor.’’ (Schneider, ’82, p. 489.) Thus it would follow, since the primary role of the God-man is from without to within, that any activity upon His part would manifestly hinder nature’s proc- [134] Curist A Fact orn Fancy esses. Accordingly, such a role for Christ becomes not only unnecessary but an impossible one. Accepting the premise of naturalists, Organic evolu- tionists, supernaturalists admit that their conclusions are true. As a student of this problem, the author insists that their premise is a non-demonstrable one; that it has hitherto eluded all demonstration; and that an individual at this time can with reason and without fear of successful contradiction, openly and aboveboard declare the Organic evolutionary hypothesis to be an ultra-scientific doctrine. If this is true, and true it un- questionably is, then the naturalistic school offers only inferences in support of its contention. Tested data is conspicuously absent. The author believes that it is not enough to declare, the school must supply. Evidence must be actual; that is, it must be present and inclusive. Christ a Fact The disciples of supernaturalism insist that, accord- ing to empiricism and scientific data, the fact of Christ, the God-man, is inescapable. These thinkers are not content to deal simply with hypotheses or inferences, but they insist that the facts for any claim should be present and inclusive. In support of the doctrine of Christ’s deity, disciples of supernaturalism offer a seven-fold witness. They introduce the testimony of History, of Literature, of Art, of Civilization, of Reason, of Experience, and of God. Witness of History Ancient History attests the deity of Christ. James Harvey Robinson, ‘‘ History of Modern HEurope,’’ says: [135] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? ‘“‘The first Christians looked for the speedy coming of Christ before their own generation should pass away. Since all were filled with enthusiasm for the Gospel and eagerly awaited the last day, they did not feel the need of an elaborate constitution. But as time went on the Christian communities greatly increased in size, and many joined them who had little or none of the original fervor and spirituality. It became necessary to develop a regular system of church government in order to con- trol the erring and expel those who brought disgrace upon their religion by notoriously bad conduct.’’ In the later stages of ancient history, its pages are replete with adoration and worship of Christ as the Son of God. The life and labors of the Roman fathers ade- quately attest Christ’s deity. These thinkers especially contended for the Lordship and Saviorhood of Jesus and insisted that the world should commit itself unreservedly to the worship of Christ Jesus as the Son of God. St. Augustine, perhaps the most noteworthy one of these fathers, strongly contended for the deity of the Naza- rene. In his confessions, Harvard Classics, Vol. 7, he says: ‘‘The true Mediator, Whom in Thy secret merey Thou hast showed to the humble, and sentest, that by His example also they might learn that same humility, that Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, appeared betwixt mortal sinners and the immortal Just One; mortal with men, just with God: that because the wages of righteousness is life and peace, He might by a righteousness conjoined with God make void that death of sinners, now made righteous, which he willed to have in common with them. Hence He was showed forth to holy men of old; that so they, through faith in His Passion to come, as we through faith of it passed, might [136] Curist A Fact on Fancy be saved. For as Man, He was a Mediator; but as the Word, not in the middle between God and man, because equal to God, and God with God, and together one God. ‘How hast Thou loved us, good Father, who sparedst not Thine only Son, but deliveredst Him up for us un- godly! How hast Thou loved us, for whom He that thought it no robbery to be equal with Thee, was made subject even to the death of the cross, He alone, free among the dead, having power to lay down his life, and power to take it again. For us to Thee both Victor and Victim, and therefore Victor, because the Victim; for us to Thee Priest and Sacrifice, and therefore Priest because the Sacrifice; making us to Thee, of servants, sons, by being born of Thee, and serving us. Well then is my hope strong in Him, that Thou wilt heal all my infirmi- ties, by Him Who sitteth at Thy right hand and maketh intercession for us, else should I despair. For many and great are my infirmities, many they are, and great; but Thy medicine is mightier. We might imagine that Thy Word was far from any union with man, and despair of ourselves, unless He had been made flesh and dwelt among us. ‘‘Affrighted with my sins and the burden of my misery, I had cast in my heart, and had purposed to flee to the wilderness: but Thou forbadest me, and strength- enedst me, saying, Therefore Christ died for all, that they which live may now no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him that died for them. See, Lord, I cast my care upon Thee, that I may live, and consider wondrous things out of Thy law. Thou knowest my unskilfulness, and my infirmities; teach me, and heal me. He, Thine only Son, in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, hath redeemed me with His blood. Let not the proud speak evil of me, because I meditate on my Ransom, and eat and drink, and communicate it ; and poor, desired to be satisfied from Him, amongst those that eat and are satisfied, and they shall praise the Lord who seek Him.’’ [137] Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? Constantine’s substitution of Christianity for pagan- ism discloses him in a role of exchanging naturalism for supernaturalism. In this, he manifestly looked upon Christ as more than a man. The verdict of Ancient History is that Christ is God in the flesh. Mediaeval History attests the deity of Christ. James Harvey Robinson, ‘‘ History of Western Europe, describ- ing the actions of Clovis who defeated the Alemanni in battle says: ‘‘ Although still a pagan himself, his wife was an orthodox Christian convert. In the midst of the conflict, as he saw his line giving way, he called upon Jesus Christ and pledged himself to be baptized in His name if He would help the Franks to victory over their enemies. He kept his word and was baptized with three thousand of his warriors.’’ In both the early and later stages of Mediaevalism, ample evidence for His Lordship appears. The accep- tance of Christianity by the fierce Teuton hordes marked an all-but-universal turning from naturalism to super- naturalism. The mediaeval war lord who lifted up a cross and said, ‘‘In this sign I conquer,’’ paid homage to Christ as Lord. Witness the Crusaders emptying mediaeval castles of their inmates, robbing the feudal estates of their wealth, turning their backs upon their homes, and marching long and weary journeys to the sacred and hallowed confines of the land of their Lord’s sepulcher, that they may defend it against the infidels. James Harvey Robinson, ‘‘History of Western Europe,’’ represents Urban II as saying: ‘‘Let the Holy Sepulcher of the Lord our Savior, [138] Curist A Fact orn Fancy which is possessed by unclean nations, especially urge you on, and the holy places which they are now treating with ignominy and irreverently polluting.’’ This excerpt fairly represents the motive actuating the leaders of all of the crusades. It is important to remember that every crusader was actuated by over- mastering desires to protect the grave of Christ, the God-man, from the devastations of semi-naturalistic worshippers. Mediaeval History unerringly discloses adoration and wership of Jesus as the God-man. Modern History also attests the deity of Christ. Not- withstanding many educators seek to play His deity down to the level of human divinity; notwithstanding numerous organized efforts seek to revile and to discredit Him; and notwithstanding many present day function- aries are arrayed against His Saviorhood and Lordship, no personality at present so grips the human thought, and so dominates, so controls, and so consumes the hu- man soul as the personality of Jesus. The directive ac- tivities of orthodox worshippers convincingly attest the influence of present-day Christian worshippers upon Modern History. Facts overwhelmingly attest such a role. While modernistic and agnostic thinkers admit, with H. G. Wells, that Christ, historically speaking, should be placed upon the topmost rung of the ladder, yet, orthodox Christians, at present largely controlling occidental social orders, consistently claim that the in- comparable works of Christ are not products simply of a historical personality, a maker of history, or a doer of deeds, but that the nature of His activities places Him in a class all to Himself. [139] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? Witness brief testimonials from some of the world’s greatest thinkers. Sir Hall Caine, London, copyrighted 1923 by Universal Service, says: ‘‘What Jesus preached he practiced. He was poor, He had no home, and no second coat; when He was smit- ten He did not smite back; when He was unjustly accused He did not defend Himself. ‘‘He did not attempt to evade His doom. He might have escaped death but He died of His own free will and believed His death was necessary to save the soul of the world. Therefore, He stood silent before the falsest charges, the most cowardly condemnation, and the most infamous indignities. He yielded up His spirit to the Father who gave it without reproach or regret or fear. ‘‘Great Vanquisher of Death! Great Lover and Re- deemer of the Human Soul! To Thee the sick and troubled world is looking more than ever now for the Light that will help the march of moving Providence and the healing of the Almighty Hand.”’ Dr. Howard A. Kelly of Baltimore, holder of profes- sional and honorary degrees from the Universities of Pennsylvania, Washington and Lee, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, for 20 years Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Johns Hopkins University, a member of at least a dozen learned societies of England, Seotland, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Austria, France, and the United States, and a master of surgery, declares, Sep- tember, 1924, issue of the Sunday School Times: ‘‘T am sixty-six years old, and have lived all my life in close touch with science and scientific men, and with all sorts of faiths which I have seen tested out. Thor- ough investigation and careful study and personal test- ing have brought me to an absolute conviction of the [140] Curist A Fact orn Fancy truth of the Bible record and the belief that the human race is incurably sinful apart from the grace of God, and that grace, foreshadowed in the Old Testament in the communications from God to the forefathers and - particularly through the sacrifices, is fully manifested in the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of a virgin who took our sins upon his sinless body and ful- filled all the sacrifices, in expiating them upon the cross. The New Testament is God’s perfect record of this fact, not man’s word, though written by human agencies by God, inbreathed by His Holy Spirit. ‘‘This belief is not a confession of faith in an ex- ternal fact, but something which transforms the life through a new spiritual birth and brings with it new appetites and offers an entirely different relationship to the world. I know this through daily personal expe- riences and through the transforming power in the lives of numbers of people I have known. ‘*Christ’s invitation is, as I think I wrote you, ‘Come and see’ (First chapter of John); and his promise is, ‘If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.’ Surely no science we can cultivate operates on any more definite principle than this.’’ J. Gresham Machen, D. D., Professor of New Testa- ment Literature and Greek in Princeton Theological Seminary, author of numerous books, says: ‘‘The Christian view of Jesus is plainly set forth in the New Testament. Jesus, according to the New Testa- ment, was a supernatural person.’’ Many other high lights also openly declare their faith in the deity of Jesus Christ. Modern History declares that His words and deeds inescapably imply [141] Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? deity. He is from all eternity and shall be unto all eternity the God-man. What, then, is the verdict of History? The records of man clearly attest Christ’s deity. The verdict of History is, Christ is the central, supreme, and superla- tive fact of the ages. Witness of Literature Literature is a consistent purveyor of Christ’s deity. Prose ceaselessly spawns the seed of His gospel, the power of His life, and the glory of His labors. It is literally prolific in its testimony for the deity of Christ. Monographs and books, manifold in number, from the pens of both laymen and theologians, declare the Savior- hood and Lordship of Jesus. These ever assert Him to be both the Son of God and the Son of man. Poetry successfully outdoes itself in declaring His deity. Take its odes, its songs, and its sonnets, the best are sur- charged with the idealism of the Master. Longfellow’s ‘‘Ode to the State’’ is most surely a tribute to Christ. The choicest sonnets and songs of this hour have been inspired by the singer’s admiration for the character and nature of Christ. Doubtless the following lines ‘* All hail the power of Jesus’ name, Let angels prostrate fall, Bring forth the royal diadem, And crown Him Lord of all.’’ are the culmination of all the gropings of song writers to express in words the heart of poetry. What, then, is the verdict of Literature? Is it not, and that inescap- [142] CuHrist A Fact on Fancy ably so, Christ is the central, supreme, and superlatwe fact of the ages? Witness of Art A survey of Art reveals similar truth. Sculpture in its highest and sublimest forms discloses the life and labors of Jesus Christ. The works of Michelangelo, Donatello, Raphael, and others, reveal the great con- cept and character of Christ, controlling and gripping their imaginations and impelling them to give concrete expression to their Christian ideals. Architecture, mediaeval and modern, universally portrays the idealism of the Master. The regnancy of His royal life upon the thinking of mediaeval and modern builders is ever present. Various architectural patterns reveal the fact and the influence of Christ. Painting reaches the zenith of its glory under the spell of Christ and His message. In all the ages, no paintings have been so revered and so highly prized as the productions of Michelangelo, Donatello, Raphael, Rubens, and Diirer. How explain this? There appears to be but one explanation: These productions were born of hearts enraptured with Christ and inflamed with a great desire to honor Him as the Son of God. Music also declares His glory. The most sublime harmonies, the most sacred melodies, the most soulful strains tend to lead individuals away from them- selves and to guide them unto the environs of Infinity. In short, the more perfect the harmony, the melody, and the rhythm, the more closely individuals approach God. What, then, is the verdict of Art? Its forms, its patterns, its imagery, and its harmony, all unerringly [143] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? declare, Christ is the central, supreme, and superlatwe fact of the ages. Witness of Civilization . Were Civilization to speak to-day, it would bear wit- ness to the ethics of Jesus undergirding the highest forms of civilization. It would insist that the ideals of Jesus experienced by mankind constitute the very warp and woof of the best in our social fabric. In surveying the life and influence of Jesus, Civiliza- tion beholds a drama gigantia. It sees Christ above 1900 years ago making an unauspicious advent into this world. It beholds Him at first as an individual without romance, position, or prestige. It views Him as He enters upon His task of redemption, and discovers His enemies shutting every door in His face. He was an unwelcome visitor in the synagogue, an intruder in the Sanhedrin, a disturber of the peace in the state, an un- welcome servitor in the midst of His own people, and a homeless vagrant in the eyes of society. Civilization sees the Pharisees outlaw Him, the Sadducees reject Him, His kindred spurn Him, society eject Him, and the state crucify Him. He was friendless, unwelcome, and re- jected. ‘‘He came unto His own and His own received: Him not.’’ ‘‘The foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.’’ But Civilization now beholds His unauspicious advent become an epochal one, and the drama gigantia become His crown of glory. Civilization sees closed doors rap- idly opening to Him; witnesses the gospel truth increas- ingly illumining the pathway of men; and beholds the [144] Curist A Fact orn Fancy Galilean triumphantly radiating light, orienting love, and giving life unto the sons of men in all the earth. It sees His Word coveted and read and appropriated as the word of no other being in all the world. It sees Him releasing human energies and empowering human lives for the battles of life. Finally, it sees Christ con- quering, controlling, and crowning. Its verdict is, Christ is the central, sworeme, and superlative fact of the ages. Witness of Reason Reason surveys the forms, forces, and functions of the universe and beholds intelligent effects everywhere. Assuming that the law of cause and effect is an indis- putable one, Reason declares that planful facts imply the existence of a planful being. Hence, designs and plans universally demand the existence of designers and planners to explain them. Accordingly, to explain the planful forms of the universe in terms of accident, chance, or fortuitous variation is an irrational procedure. Reason outlaws such an explanation and points out that many of these planful forms and activities are such as man cannot create. It further insists that the existence of planful forms which men cannot create logically com- pels the recognition of a Transcendent One who is able to create them. Therefore, Reason concludes that back of the planful forms, forces, and functions of the uni- verse there must be an Infinite Planner; hence the neces- sity for recognizing an Infinite Creator. Accordingly, the verdict of Reason is, Christ is the central, supreme, and superlative fact of the ages. [145] Can An Evoxutionist Be A CHRIstTIAN ? Witness of Experience The triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem marked a victorious epoch in the life of the Great Commoner. The multitudes shouted, ‘‘ ‘Hosanna, Blessed is the King who cometh in the name of the Lord!’’’ Since that epochal hour, the redeemed have unceasingly shouted, ‘‘ ‘Hosanna, Blessed is the King who reigneth in the name of the Lord!’’’ Ask trustful Christendom, ‘¢ “What think ye of Jesus?’’’ It answers, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’’’ Ask worshipful congregations, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of Jesus?’’’ They reply, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ ”’ Ask believing father, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of Jesus?’ ’’ He rephes, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ ”’ Ask adoring mother, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of Jesus?’ ”’ She exclaims, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’’’ Ask faithful brother, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of Jesus?’ ’’ He responds, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ ’’ Ask constant sister, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of Jesus?’’’ She shouts, ‘‘ ‘He is the Rose of Sharon, the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and the Morning Star, He is the chiefest of ten thousand, all together lovely.’ Surely, ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ ’’ Ask the blood-washed throng from the death of Jesus on the Cross until this hour, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of Jesus?’ ’’? With one acclaim and with one accord they sing: ‘* “Alas, and did my Savior bleed, And did my sovereign die? Could He devote that sacred head For such a worm as [?’ [146] Curist A Fact org Fancy ‘* “Oh, how I love Jesus, Oh, how I love Jesus, Oh, how I love Jesus, Because He first loved me.’ ”’ With one voice they conclude, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ ’’ To the redeemed of yesterday and today, Christ is the marvelous One, the miraculous One, the redeeming One vf all the ages. The verdict of Experience is, ‘“‘Christ is the central, supreme, and superlative fact of the ages.’’ Witness of God God also bears witness concerning Jesus. The baptism of the Master in the Jordan occasioned an Infinite attest to the deity of Jesus. The Holy Spirit descended as a dove and abode upon Him, and the voice of God from the heavens declared, ‘* This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”’ Again, on Mt. Tabor, when Christ was transfigurated in the presence of the translated ones, God, in His appro- bation of the Son, and in His desire to turn men away from naturalism unto supernaturalism, again shouted with a loud voice, ‘‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye Him.’’ Hear Him, and not men. Hear Him, and not the doctrines of men. Hear Him, and not the mental rummagings of men. Hear Him! In the mind of God, Christ 1s the central, supreme, and superlative fact of the ages. CONCLUSION: Having now looked at the infer- ences of naturalism and at the witnesses of supernatu- ralism, what shall we say? Shall we accept inferences which reduce Christ from deity to humanity? Shall we [147] Can An Evoxutionist Br A CuHristiIAn? accept ‘‘It is thought’’; ‘‘It is believed’’; ‘‘It is in- ferred’’; ‘‘It is supposed’’; as representing authenti- cated data? Do not these terms inescapably imply ‘‘missing facts?’’ If the conclusions of inference must be rejected as unscientific, then what? Why, the only alternative left for humanity is to accept the empiric evidence submitted by supernaturalists. The author is convineed that the witness of the seven is sufficient to satisfy the demands of science; the testimony is present and inclusive. To him, facts unerringly proclaim the deity of Jesus. Hence, Christ is not a fancy but a tran- scendent fact. Accordingly, Christ is the central, su- preme, and superlative fact of all the ages. Surely, such a Christ is deliciously majestic. To stand in His presence, to feel the warmth of His personality, and to discern the wealth of His love, is to fellowship august Truth. But a word from His gracious lips re- veals depths to which man cannot dive and heights to which he cannot climb. But a note discloses melodies wondrously sweet. Being Truth’s exemplar, the Son of Righteousness universally woos the erring and the lost with melody and song. At first His voice, soft as the silvery spray of Toccoa Falls, and as gentle as the honey- dew of Hermon, reaches the ear of the anxious enquirer. As the tones gradually round out into delightful full- ness, the subdued sweetness increases. Fuller and fuller become the notes and rounder and rounder become the intonations, so that at length every niche and corner of the enquirer’s universe is surcharged with incom- parable melody. Rhapsodies devour him; aesthetic milieu encompasses him; and rhythmic glory consumes him. Enraptured and entranced, he witnesses the im- [148] —— ee ee in Curist A Fact on Fancy pregnated harmonies recede into a decadence enticing and sweet, only to behold them rise again with new melodies and added glory. Standing in the midst of art resplendent; quaffing anon at fountains of beatific love- liness; and feeding ever upon the ‘‘bread of life,’’ the enquirer learns at last the glory of righteousness and the loveliness of the Redeemer. As the king of day, morning by morning, spreads his eolden mantle upon the races of men, and unselfishly bequeaths his comfort and cheer; as the queen of night, evening by evening, rolls back thickening shrouds and gloriously floods the human heart with silvery radiance; as the Ultima Thule, day by day, traversing illimitable reaches, gathers up stray diamond sparkles and pro- fusely scatters them upon myriads of night-bound pil- erim, even so may Thou, O Friend o’Mine, maker of the heavenly luminance, bestow warmth upon the cold, light upon the distressed, and guidance upon the lost. May Thy sunbeams warm our hearts, may Thy moon- beams cheer our souls, and may Thy starlight guide our erring lives unto planes of freedom and love. Oh, Thou majestic One, teach us to smile when adver- sity envelops us with clouds of blackness; teach us to - sing when evil ones encompass us with curtains of de- spair; teach us to laugh when agents of misfortune chill our lingering spirits; and teach us to love when agencies of death discomfit us. May Thy benedictions abound in the hearts of men ever and anon. May the frontiers of Thy influence become the borders of the earth. From the frozen fields of Russia to the sun-kissed hills of Italy, from the romantic vale of Eden to the sweet-scented shamrocks of Emerald’s Isle, from the snow-capped [149] Can An Evouurtionist Be A CuHristTIan? mountains of the Himalayas to the fragrant magnolias of America, may the wealth of Thy power, the light of Thy understanding, and the measure of Thy love univer- sally obtain. To Thee, O majestic One, we turn for life, light, and love. Dance on, thou daughters of Zion, thou art Eden’s best. Sing on, thou sons of Israel, thou art Truth’s blest. Hope on, thou children of Elim, thou art Heaven’s guest. O, Thou Son of Righteousness, who art from everlasting unto everlasting, beam on; let the radiations of Thy smiles and the solaces of Thy love eternally begirt and environ us! [150] CHAPTER VIII All-But-Boneless Men HE ideal, Organic evolution, is a mental pattern dae manifestly guides most modern scientists in their selection, organization, interpretation, and applica- tion of educational methods and content. As previously seen, it confessedly pictures a natural unfolding process and provides a key for the interpretation of all the forms, forces, and functions in the life of the universe. To get its significance, one must be able to envisage the process represented by Organic evolution. The author believes that most natural scientists would agree that Organic evolution is a natural process of unfolding from within to without, never from without to within; or that it is simply a process of natwral change, natural develop- ment, and natural progress, all resulting from. selective functions of the resident forces of nature. The influence of Organic evolution upon modern science is large indeed. By it, classroom material is selected and evaluated ; by it, classroom methods are un- folded and applied; by it, mental and spiritual phenom- ena are evolved and measured; and by it, eventualities and actualities are fitted and folded into the Organic evolutionary mould in order to give them rational inter- pretation. Once this mental pattern is accepted, it be- comes all-sufficient to explain every detail and process in the life of the universe. According to it, every form and foree in nature and every material body and ap- [151] Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? proved idea in life are simply evolutions. Every indi- vidual and every human institution exist as end-results of nature’s unfolding processes. Thus, the home, the school, the vocation, the state, and the worship are all products of natural and social selection. An enquirer asks, ‘‘What are the grounds for assum- ing the existence of such an evolutionary process? How justify the practice of making all phenomena fit into the Organic evolutionary concept in order to give them rational interpretation? Is it true that evolution is the key which unlocks the hidden secrets of the universe? Are life’s processes so simple as to be measured by a single mental pattern ?”’ In order to answer the enquirer, it will be necessary to keep in mind the nature of scientific method and content. To be brief, scientific method is professedly unbiased, unopinionated, open-minded, and discriminating. It is predominantly inductive. It diligently applies the acid tests of observation, investigation, and experimentation in order to discover and verify truth. Scientific content is confessedly composed of tested and proven data. True science rests upon demonstrated facts. A science founded upon ‘‘guesses’’ is a pseudo- science. Reason outlaws ‘‘missing facts’’ as inadequate foundations for scientific procedure. Science demands that facts be present and inclusive. Our enquirer obtrudes again and asks, ‘‘Could it be that Organic evolution is founded upon ‘missing facts’? Or that ‘guesses’ provide the foundation for the evolu- tionary hypothesis ?’’ To answer these questions impartially, it will be neces- [152] Auut-But-BoneLess MEn sary to survey Organic evolutionary data and witness the evidence submitted in support of the theory. A careful study of the theory and its influence upon civilization, leads to four interesting and significant conclusions: (1) Organic evolution falls down in theory. (2) Organic evolution falls down in function. (8) Organic evolution falls down in fact. (4) Organic evolution is ultra-scientific. Evolution Falls Down in Theory Theoretically, Organic evolution teaches the imfalli- bility of human nature. Such a doctrine is inescapable since Organic evolution outlaws involutionary processes. Granting the educational task of the race to be the ‘*redirection of instincts,’’ or accepting the evolutionary dictum, ‘‘Every impulse is right unless misdirected,”’ how account for the misdirection of the first impulse? Original nature, being naturally good, could not account for it. Physical environments, being imper- sonal, could not explain it. Jehovah God, being ab- solutely righteous, could not induce it. And Satan, being non-existent, according to evolution, could not determine it. Now, if the misdirection of the first impulse cannot be explained in terms of human nature, nor in terms of physical environments, nor in terms of an infinite God, nor in terms of an inimicable devil, then how account for it? Votaries of nature’s infallibility answer, ‘‘accidents.”’ Now, if the first misdirection of impulse was acci- dental, then the resulting response was but a mistake and the individual involved was not responsible for the deed. Accepting ‘‘accident’’ as an explanation for the [153] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? race’s sins, then the evil of the past and of the present is not, in and of itself, bad; it is Just so many mistakes ; or it is simply the manifestations of ignorance. But, votaries of nature’s infallibility might say that repeated mistakes could develop a conscience against certain types of activities, and that the elements of such a conscience would constitute the essence of sin. Accept- ing this judgment, sin becomes simply that which the mind of man condemns. Thus, there can be no sin until man thinks so. Accordingly, evil becomes no more and no less than mal-adjustments or mistaken reactions due to man’s attempt to mutually adapt himself to his social and physical environments; or it is simply what man thinks to be wrong. Thus, right and wrong are relative and finite. Thorndyke reveals the heart of the doctrine when he says: ‘*By the nature-right doctrine, the actual terminus of evolution is the moral end of human action. What is going to be is right. Our duty is to abstain from inter- fering with nature, supposing such an interference to be possible. A child should be trained up in the way that inner impulse of development leads him to go. The sum- mum bonum for the race is to live out its own evolution with interest and freedom. No stage to which nature impels should by human artifice be either hastened or prolonged lest the magic order be disturbed. The ideal for humanity is to be sought in its natural outcome in which it of itself tends to be, irrespective of training. Human effort should be to let inner forces of develop- ment do their perfect work.”’ [154] Auu-But-BonEeLess Men Guillet says: ‘«Since it is the order of nature that the new organism should pass through certain developmental stages, it be- hooves us to study Nature’s plan, and seek to aid rather than to thwart it, for Nature must be right; there is no higher criterion.’’ As a refutation of the doctrine of nature’s infallibility, Thorndyke, while insisting that common sense at once opposes the contention that lying, stealing, torturing, ignorance, irrational fears, and a hundred weaknesses and vices are original in man, declares: ‘‘The imperfections and misleadings of original nature are, in fact, many and momentous. The common good requires that each child learn countless new lessons and unlearn a large fraction of its natural birthright.’’ Thorndyke is manifestly right. To assume that the race is naturally good is to face at once the enigma of explaining away human activities which universally be- lie such a thesis. There are literally hundreds of human activities which find no adequate explanation apart from the fact that human nature is originally and actually imperfect. Human nature must be guided in its native development because its innate equipment reflects evil tendencies. Every impulse of man is not right. Theoretically, Organic evolution teaches gradual and unlimited change. Accordingly, all of the forms of the universe have passed or are passing through transforma- tions due to the gradual changes wrought out by nature’s selective processes. Moreover, all of the species extant are end-results of the transmutation of lower into higher [155] Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHrIstTIAn? forms. Organic evolutionists have long asserted that existing life forms have been wrought out by natural selections through its endless mutations, and that through these processes all existing orders have been evolved. } The present day bearing of Mendelianism, a univer- sally accepted doctrine, upon the evolutionary theory is indeed significant. The Mendelian doctrine, long offered in support of the evolutionary hypothesis, negates com- pletely the gradual and indefinite change theory. In- stead of teaching infinite plasticity, it teaches fixity and rigidity. Instead of teaching unlimited development, it teaches development within limits. Instead of teaching endless gradual creations, it teaches specific and definite creations. At present, Mendelianism is one of the great- est scientific obstacles in the way of the evolutionary hypothesis. It should be remembered that if Organic evolution is to stand up in theory, function, or fact, the transmuta- tions of species must be demonstrated. Without its demonstration, all evolutionary claims fall flat. Evolution Falls Down in Function If Organic evolution falls down in theory, would it not be reasonable to expect it to fall down in function? The important issue before us is: Does Organic evolution work? Does it actually work itself out in human expe- rience for human well-being? Does it measure up to the pragmatic test? If the doctrine of evolution is to be justified, its influence upon society must be positive and wholesome. In short, if it is right in function, the in- fluence of its teaching should tend to make the race [156] Aut-But-BonELEss MEN purer, better, happier, and more altruistic. Does human history disclose Organic evolution in such a role? If the author has rightly surveyed its influence and its tendencies, it is safe to assert that it is morally and spiritually enervating. Instead of purer lives obtaining under the influence of Organic evolutionary teaching, the present witnesses a great increase in vice. lLibertinism is increasingly sanctioned by humanity. The home moves steadily toward legalized promiscuity. Divorces are becoming moral cancers in the body of civilization. It is safe to say that under the selfward teachings of Organic evolu- tion the tendency to break down sex conventions in- ‘ereases in arithmetical ratios and the habit of illegiti- mately gratifying sex impulses increases in geometrical ratios. Instead of increasingly producing men and women whose word is their bond, whose integrity is their secur- ity, and whose fidelity is universally unfailing, it has tended to encourage looseness in morals, laxness in ful- filing obligations, and liberty in substituting privilege for principles. Under the impact of the evolutionary suggestion, ‘‘ Help thyself,’’ the race has tended to take it literally and as a result men and women are becoming more and more self-centered and sufficient unto them- selves. Instead of producing happiness, the influence of Or- ganic evolutionary teaching tends to create suspicion, doubt, graft, greed, intrigue, and other forms of unsocial activities. It tends to produce discontentment, unrest, and chaos. Under the impact of its logic, the world, [157] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? during the World War, was brought to a grief hitherto unequalled in the annals of human activities. Instead of altruism, Organic evolutionary teaching tends to produce egoism. Under such teaching mankind increasingly looks to itself for aid and succor. In causing the race to think increasingly for, around, and unto itself, Organic evolution encourages self-interest and self-activities. Now, Psychology maintains that the exercise of a function strengthens the function. If the race exercises itself in self-ward activities, it manifestly increases its own selfishness. Hence, such evolution maximizes egoism and minimizes altruism. In conclusion, it may be said that egoistic knowledge, egoistic ideals, and egoistic activities are inescapably un- social in their influence. Organic evolutionary teaching tends to produce a morality undergirded with prudential ethics, and just in proportion as civilization rests upon such ethies does the ideal of force and sham guide human beings in their mundane activities. Such evolutionary doctrine has been and is one of the world’s greatest influences in exalting force as a means of progress, and in the light of late experiences it has been a means of bringing the world to its greatest grief. In fact, Organic evolution in its self-ward teachings has made large contributions towards the present-day drifts in social orders. By encouraging self-ward aspirations and activities, it has promoted educational, social, political, and religious drifts. Educationally, the tendency has been away from God to nature. Socially, it has been away from tested and proven conventions to social inconoclasm. Politically, it has been away from [158] Aut-But-Bonge.ess Men sanity toward selfishnes. And, religiously, it has been away from Christ to man. Evolution Falls Down in Fact A survey of the developments of human experience and the findings of modern research ought to reveal the factual basis of Organic evolution. Unquestioned facts to support its claims ought to be present and conclusive. It will be found, however, that different aspects of Or- ganic evolution rest largely upon inference. Evidence for spontaneous generation is mferential. Spontaneous generation is a basic principle of Organic evolution. Apart from it, such philosophy has no way of explaining the origin of life. If it is not a fact, then Organic evolution rests upon inferences or guesses. In the lght of scientific procedure, is spontaneous generation demonstrable? Is evidence for its role to be observed, investigated, and experimented with? Apply- ing the steps of scientific procedure, can Organic evolu- tionists demonstrate the sun’s rays to be life-quickening in their power? No! Can they demonstrate that acci- dental combination of chemicals suddenly produced life aeons ago? No! Can they demonstrate that ‘‘millions of years ago the great wonder happened and the dead gave birth to life and the first living floated upon the waters of the sea?’’ No! Can they demonstrate one instance wherein natural law acting upon dead matter produced life? No! Accordingly, spontaneous genera- tion rests upon ‘‘missing facts,’’ or inference, and, as a consequence, must be rejected. Evidence for unlimited variation is inferential. Un- limited variation is the differentiatng role of natural [159] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? selection. Its role is not limited to a species but to organic life. Accordingly, one species transmutes into another, the lower into the higher, and on and on, so that out of the gradual and transmuting process all of the various forms of the vegetable, the animal, and the human kingdom have been evolved. All would agree that this is a specious doctrine, but is it true? Do facts verify it? In this study it should not be overlooked that structural changes do not constitute transmutations. Organic evolutionists, in contending for unlimited variations in which transmutations are supposed to occur, face insuperable obstacles. The first obstacle is that hybrids are or tend to be sterile. This is true both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. In the animal kingdom, the mule, a cross between the horse and the ass, cannot perpetuate its kind. So far as science knows, no such hybrid in the animal series can do so. In the vege- table kingdom, certain hybrid products are incapable of reproducing themselves through seed. Hence, nurserymen perpetuate in kind through assexual processes (graft- ing) rather than sexual-self-fertilization. The signifi- eance of hybrids now appears. As the fringes of the species become hybrids, sterility appears. Accordingly, there is variation within limits, and not unlimited varia- tion. Of course, it follows that if unlimited variation is discredited by facts, transmutation of species must be abandoned. Hybrids outlaw unlimited variation. The second obstacle in the way of unlimited variation is Mendelianism. As previously seen, the Mendelian ratio teaches that germ plasm varies within limits; that is, it teaches rigidity rather than unlimited plasticity. The third obstacle in the way of unlimited variation [160] Aut-But-Bong.Less Men is, ‘‘ Like begets like.’’ Accordingly, each species brings forth only after its kind. Human experience shows this to be true. The fly begets flies. The gnat begets gnats. The bat begets bats. The dog begets dogs. The dove begets doves. The owl begets owls. The man begets men. This is universal and invariable. So far as ex- perience goes, all the people in all the world in all time have not been able to offer one instance wherein one specie brought forth other than its kinds. Empirically, ‘‘Hike begets like.’’ According to the above facts, sterility, rigidity, and ‘*Like begets like’’ discredit unlimited variation and in doing so, they outlaw the doctrine of the transmutation of the species. With this judgment, Dr. Etheridge, fossilologist, British Museum concurs. He says: ‘*In all this great institution, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of the species.’’ Evidence for the survival of the fittest is inferential. The survival of the fittest is the end-result of the endless struggle in nature. Through the process of ‘‘lke be- getting unlike,’’ evolutions from lower to higher forms are supposed to take place. If lower forms of life mutate into higher ones, struggle between the two imme- diately ensues. The lower and the higher struggle for sustenance and privilege. The higher form is supposed to win. Accordingly, the fittest survives. Do the fittest forms always survive? The answer to this question obviously involves the meaning attached to the ‘‘fittest.’’ What are the fittest forms? Are they the [161] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? ones which win in struggle? Or are they the ones caleu- lated to contribute the most to life? Archeology shows that many of the most physically perfect animals have perished. Fossils of mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, and wolves, showing physical finish which greatly eclipses present-day ones, are to be found in the world’s museums. Archeology shows that the fit- test physically among men have not always survived. The Cro-Magnon race undoubtedly represents the finest physical and mental specimens of the past, yet it is not known that it has any direct offspring among men. Zoology shows that mice and rabbits, veritable pests and incurably cowardly, continue to increase. English sparrows, nothing more than winged pests, are multi- plying geometrically. Zoology not only shows that in- ferior types multiply but it further shows that wonder- ful animals forms are passing from the earth today. History shows that the fittest among men do not al- Ways survive. War takes away the superior lives and leaves the inferior. The dopesters, the drunkards, the rakes, and the bums are left to multiply and replenish the earth. History further shows that moral degenerates and conscienceless cowards often fill places of honor. By tricks, lies, and intrigues they defraud integrity out of its rights. The unfit often direct human affairs. In the hght of facts, the doctrines of spontaneous generation, unlimited variation, and the survival of the fittest, most surely lack support. The truth discredits them. A survey of the actual testimony of organized sciences having most to do with the nature and functions of Organic evolution must now be made. Such a survey [162] AuuL-But-Boneuess Men compels a review of Biology, Geology, Anthropology, and Sociology. What does Biology disclose? Darwin’s inductive studies, covering many years and wide travel, led to the issuance of his ‘‘Origin of the Species.’’ During his wide studies, he observed certain series of related facts; discovered definite variations in organic forms; dis- cerned apparent struggle between species; and then concluded that such phenomena pictured an eternity of natural strife and gradual change. In his ‘‘Origin of the Species,’’ he sets forth the following concepts: First, all organic life is in a process of natural change; second, all organic changes are grad- ual, ranging from the simple to the complex; third, all organic forms are in a state of continual struggle, with the fittest surviving; fourth, all existing species are cre- ated and preserved by natural selection. What evidence had Darwin to show that all organic life sprang from a single cell, or from multiple pri- mordial cells? Had he observed such natural genera- tion? No! What evidence had he that the first forms of organic changes were simply natural and gradual? Had he wit- nessed such phenomena in point of time and place? No! What evidence had he that all living organisms are in a state of continual strife? Did he actually demon- strate it? No! What evidence had he that species transmute? Had he ever witnessed a single transmutation? No! Overlooking Darwin’s failure to demonstrate his premises, many biological scientists soon accepted his new mental pattern. His theory was long, and is widely [163] Can An Evoxtutionist Bz A CHrIsTIAN ? today, accepted by educators as a rational working hypothesis. Investigations, especially the remarkable ex- periments of Mendel, have caused hard-headed scientists to question his doctrine. As previously seen, Mendelianism is now universally accepted. Instead of teaching organic plasticity and oradual change, it teaches rigidity and relative change- lessness. Instead of teaching unlimited variation, it teaches variation within limits. Instead of teaching infinite plasticity, it teaches relative rigidity. It is thus seen that this- demonstrable doctrine teaches special creation with variation limited to the species. Accordingly, the Mendelian ratio discredits Darwin’s geradual and unlimited change theory. It supports the doctrine, Like begets like, rather than the evolutionary doctrine, Like begets like until tt doesn’t. Again, as previously seen, sterility and perpetuity of species fail to support the gradual change theory of Darwinian evolutionists. Now, if rigidity, sterility, and perpetuity of species are demonstrable, and these, in turn, discredit the transmutation of the species, then the assumption that man is simply an evolved animal is a groundless one. What, then, shall we say concerning Biological evolu- tion. There is no escape from the conclusion that it rests largely upon flimsy inference. Inadequate data forces the conclusion that Biological evolution is founded upon ‘‘missing facts.’’ It is to date an untenable and ultra-scientifie doctrine. All sincere Biologists will agree that Organic evolution, not development, is a non- demonstrable theory. The most that can be said for it is, it is a@ big guess. [164] Auut-But-BoneLess Men What does Geology show? Exponents of Organic evolution often buttress their position with Geological evolution. It is a futile analogy. A survey of this field shows older Geological scientists exploring the earth’s surface, examining its forms, isolating its strata, divid- ing the earth’s layers into geologic ages of aeons of dura- tion, and concluding that each stratum was slowly and gradually evolved. It reveals them assuming that the earth’s strata lie one upon the other, the oldest being the lowest. Now, if this theory is true and is worth anything to science, each stratum must disclose definite inorganic forms, or organic forms, or cultural forms, or all of these forms. Henry Fairfield Osborn, Research Professor of Zoology, Columbia University, indicates in ‘*Men of the Old Stone Age,’’ many instances where a single stratum discloses indefinite and various inanimate, lifeless, and cultural forms. George McCready Price, Professor of Geology, Union College, College View, Nebraska, breaks with the old school of Geologists. According to the author’s interpre- tation of his ‘‘New Geology,’’ he maintains that the prevalence of indefimite and variable life and culture forms in a single stratum disrupts the evolutionary hypothesis and avers that such indefiniteness and vari- ability imply that the earth’s strata have been formed by series of sudden convulsions of the earth, and that such convulsions account for the existence of various inani- mate, lifeless, and cultural forms in the same stratum. Thus, the commingling of human, fauna, flora, and inanimate forms of different geologic ages in a single [165] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? stratum destroys gradual evolution and connotes cat- aclysmic development. Price’s ‘‘New Geology’’ shows that the gradual evolu- tion theory of the older Geologists has broken down. Both the Onion and the Biological coat theories are exploded by the above data. The above irregularities are variously explained by defenders of evolution. It must be admitted, however, that such irregularities are painfully abundant and universally disturbing. According to the latest scientific findings, Geology does not demonstrate gradual change in the earth and its forms. Accordingly, Geological evolution is a ‘‘pipe dream.’’ It is founded upon ‘‘missing facts.”’ What does Anthropology reveal? As .a science, it divides into two great fields, General and Cultural. The one is concerned with the development of the human body, and the other with the development of human cul- ture. Space will not permit a study of Cultural Anthro- pology in this connection. Henry Fairfield Osborn, perhaps the most outstanding Anthropologist of this age, in his book, ‘‘Men of the Old Stone Age,’’ delineates and describes the various pre- historic and intermediate races now accepted by modern Anthropology. Organic evolution teaches that between the ape and modern man there must have been inter- mediate races, higher than the ape but lower than pres- ent-day human beings. Chief among these hypothetical races are the Trinil, the Piltdown, the Heidelberg, and the Neanderthal. The Trini Race. The actual scientific evidence upon which the race is founded is disclosed in Osborn’s ‘‘ Men of the Old Stone Age,’’ pages 73-75. He says: [166] OE SS Auu-But-BoneLess Mien ‘‘On the Bengawan River in Central Java, a Dutch army surgeon, EKugene DuBois, had been excavating for fossils in the hope of finding prehuman remains. In the year 1891 he found near Trinil a deposit of numerous mammal bones, including a single upper molar tooth which he regarded as that of a new species of ape. On - carefully clearing away the rock the top of a skull ap- peared at about a meter’s distance from the tooth. Fur- ther excavation at the close of the rainy season brought to light a second molar tooth and a left thigh-bone about 15 meters from the spot where the skull was found, im- bedded and fossilized in the same manner. These scat- tered parts were described by DuBois in 1894 as the type of Pithecanthropus Erectus, a term signifying the up- right-standing ape-man. * * * Although far advanced in the course of differentiation, this Pleistocene form had not yet attained to the human type. Pithecanthro- pus Erectus is the transition form between man and the anthropoids which the laws of evolution teach us must have existed. He is the ancestor of man.”’ J. Arthur Thomson, Professor of Natural History, University of Aberdeen, in his text, ‘‘What is Man?”’ agrees essentially with Osborn’s record of the Trinil race. The only difference in their reports being, he says three teeth where Osborn names but two. Osborn’s statement holds a three-fold interest for the reader: First, it is interesting because of the motive it reveals. Mr. DuBois desired to find pre-human remains, In short, he was looking for the missing link. Second, it is interesting because of the bones it reveals. Two teeth, top of a skull, and left thigh bone are disclosed. None of these are found together, and the last two were discovered nearly 50 feet away from the first two. Js 1t not extremely interesting to observe that out of the 206 [167] Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? bones in the human body, the reader witnesses less than one-fiftieth of them. In comparing the number of bones found with the number in the human body, it will be seen that there were just 202 out of 206 bones missing. That’s all! Mr. DuBois had less than two per cent of the bones of the human body out of which to constitute a new race. By means of many giant stretches of his imagination he mentally fabricated the ‘‘missing link,’’ for which he was looking, and with equal skill foisted his newly created all-but-boneless race upon awaiting zealots and undiscriminating students. Third, it is interesting because it reveals an all-but- boneless race. To the stickler-for-facts or the seeker- after-truth, the creation of a race out of 98 per cent missing facts is but little short of scientific suicide. Some would protest this presentation of the case by declaring that Mr. DuBois was in possession of certain norms or formulae by which he fabricated Pithecan- thropus Erectus. Our hard-headed enquirer admits such a role for norms in imaginative functions, but he insists that many activities have been futile because they have been guided by false standards. He points out the fact that Ptolemy’s ‘‘Geocentrism’’ was accepted for ages as scientific, but that it lingers today only as a memento of an unscientific past. He wants to know where the other 202 bones are. They are the missing facts which concern him. What is the meaning of all this? Must we conclude that the “‘missing link’’ is synonymous with missing facts? Have we any other alternative? It is of interest to note that a commission was reliably reported to have [168] Aut-But-BonELeEss MEN been formed in 1920 to spend $250,000.00 in Java for the purpose of finding some more bones. It is admitted there 1s room for some more bones to be added to the meager Pithecanthropi stock. The Pithecanthropic race, on the basis of scientific fact, is all-but-boneless. The Piltdown Race. This race is known as the ‘‘ Dawn man,’’ or EKoanthropus. Osborn states, pages 132-34: ‘*Several years ago Dawson discovered a small portion of an unusually thick human parietal bone, taken from a gravel bed which was being dug for road-making pur- poses on a farm close to Piltdown Common. In the Autumn of 1911, he picked up among the rain-washed spoil-heaps of the same gravel-pit another and larger piece of bone belonging to the forehead region of the same skull, and including a portion of the ridge extending over the left eyebrow. Immediately impressed with the importance of this discovery, Dawson enlisted the co- operation of Smith Woodward, and a systematic search was made in these spoil-heaps and gravels, beginning in the Spring of 1912; all the material was looked over and carefully sifted. It appears that the whole or greater part of the human skull had been scattered by the work- men, who had thrown away the pieces unnoticed. (Thorough search in the bottom of the gravel bed itself revealed the right half of a jaw), which was found in a depression of undisturbed, finely stratified gravel, so far as could be judged on the spot identical with that from which the first portions of the cranium were ex- humed. A yard from the jaw an important piece of the occipital bone of the skull was found. Search was re- newed in 1918 by Father P. Teilhard, of Chardin, a French Anthropologist, who fortunately recovered a single canine tooth, and later a pair of nasal bones were found, all of which fragments are of very great signifi- cance in the restoration of the skull.”’ [169] Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? This excerpt is also interesting. Nine bones are intro- duced here. This is a better average than the above. The scientist has about four per cent evidence out of which to constitute this new race. But, our hard-headed friend, refusing to yield to caution, butts in again and insists that the other 197 bones be brought forth. They are missing. Well, it must be admitted again that missing facts are embarrassing. The Heidelberg Race. This race professedly repre- sents another important discovery for Anthropology. Osborn says, page 98: ‘‘The discovery in 1907 of a human lower jaw in the base of the ‘Mauer sands’ is one of the most important in the whole history of anthropology. The find was made at a depth of 79 feet (24.10 m.) from the upper surface of a high bluff, in ancient river sands which had long been known to yield the very old mammalian fauna described above. For years the workmen had been in- structed to keep a sharp lookout for human remains. The jaw had evidently drifted down with the river sands and had become separated from the skull, but it re- mained in perfect preservation. Had the teeth been absent it would have been impossible to diagnose it as human.’’ The reader will observe that science here presents . only one bone, the teeth of which alone apparently giv- ing it identity. That the jaw bone was found no one denies or decries. But that a lone jaw bone should be used as a scientific basis for asserting the existence of a low order of human beings, our ancestral antecedents, is a presumption that facts disdain. In this case, there [170] Auu-But-BongeLEss Men were just 205 out of the 206 bones missing. That’s all! The missing facts here are oppressive. The Neanderthal Race. Much scattered evidence is offered to establish the historicity of this people. Of the Krapina skull of the Neanderthaloid race, Osborn says, page 183: ‘‘The bones are in such a fragmentary condition that it is impossible to form a proper estimate of the brain capacity in either the males or females of this race; nor is it possible to estimate the stature.’’ Of the typical Neanderthal types, Osborn further says, page 217: ‘‘In 1856 some workmen were engaged in clearing a small loam-covered cave about six feet in height, the so- ealled Feldhofner Grotto, in the cretaceous limestone of the valley known as the Neanderthal, on the small stream Dussel, flowing between Elberfeld and Dusseldorf. They discovered some human bones, probably a complete skeleton, representing an interment, which, unfortu- nately, were allowed to be scattered and crushed. Doctor Fuhlrott rescued the parts that remained, including the now famous skulleap, both thigh-bones, the right upper- arm bone, portions of the lower arm, bones of both sides, the right collar-bone, and fragments of the pelvis, shoulder-blade, and ribs. All the bones were perfectly preserved and are now to be found in the provincial museum of Bonn.’’ This represents the completest discovery hitherto brought to light. Even in these archeological discov- eries, one is unable to escape the prevalence of missing facts. Many bones are absent. The Cro-Magnon Race. The Cro-Magnon Race is not [171] Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? in reality an intermediate type. It sums up in its physi- eal life the modern man. The archeological discoveries, illustrating the existence of this race are abundant. But the prevalence of bones here lose their significance be-- cause the Cro-Magnon race is thought to be immediately antecedent to the ancient races of historic times. These people do not mark an evolutionary stage in the develop- ment of modern man; they are we. The Cro-Magnon race, offered as evolutionary evidence, is unimportant because it is not an intermediate type between the ape and modern man. Our enquiring friend raises the question, ‘*‘ How can we know that the Cro-Magnon race, which is ‘supposed’ to have lived from 25 to 40 thousand years ago, consti- tutes the climax of natural selection in Organie evolu- tion?’’ To answer his question, while acknowledging that facts for the existence of these people are demon- strable, it must be admitted in turn that the facts which demonstrate them to be the crowning stage in a regular series of physical evolution are missing. That these people rose to culture heights unknown for their day is readily admitted, but to say dogmatically that they are the crown of a regular unbroken series of natural selec- tion in the animal order is saying more than can be demonstrated. That archeologists have found a few bones none can deny. That scientists have used such skimpy evidence to establish hypothetical and intermediate races all should decry. If such bones are human, they are we. A friend of Organic evolution interposes an objection to the above indictments on the ground that they fail to comprehend the discoveries of Cultural Anthropology. With reference to this criticism, only a few words in [172] ae ——— —= So) Aut-But-BonELess Mien response will suffice. Evidence for the dominance of missing facts in Cultural Anthropolgy is disclosed in the continual recurrence of such terms as ‘‘probably,’’ ‘‘thought,’’ ‘‘appears,’’ ‘‘assume,’’ ‘‘infer,’’ and ‘‘sup- pose.’’ Now, these terms are regularly used by scientists to bridge the chasm between the known and the un- known. These terms obviously imply missing facts. What does Sociology show? Sociology, as a science, is indebted in a large way to Biology, Anthropology, and Psychology for patterns of thought. Until quite recently it accepted the laws projected by these sciences and did very little scientific research for itself. Most modern Sociologists accept the Organic evolu- tionary pronouncements of their co-laborers in other sciences. The significance of this is disclosed in the labors of modern Sociologists. They assume, largely on the basis of other professedly scientific findings, that Organic evolution is a fact, and they in turn project their social program upon the basis of their assumption. Now, to get the import of this, it is necessary to remember that Organic evolution logically teaches that man is naturally good and that all ameliorative measures should be projected upon the basis of his innate good- ness. Our enquiring friend butts in again and ex- elaims, ‘‘If man is naturally good, how explain the regnance of evil ?’’ Can evil be explained completely in terms of nee ? If so, how account for the ability of man to make false adjustments? If ‘‘every impulse of man is good unless misdirected,’’ as evolution logically teaches, how account for the misdirection of the first impulse? As previously seen, no Organic evolutionists can accuse God, or the [173] Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? devil, or physical environments, or original nature of being responsible for such misdirection. If neither of these represent the source of false motives and egoistic aspirations, then what? Why, there exists effects for which chere are no causes. Such cannot be the ease. Experience shows that man has been and is imperfect. If so, humanly speaking, the root of evil must be writ in the native equipment of man. If such is true, then science must abandon its doctrine of nature’s ‘‘infalli- bility.’”’? Every impulse of man is not right. No one ean find real justification for such behavior as teasing, bullying, envying, ete. The answer to the aforesaid questions is simply this: The capacity for human undoing is writ in human nature. No matter how many thinkers try to explain away the tragic fact of man’s native depravity, inherent sin ever remains an incontestable and universal fact. Man sins because the sin principle is in him. Man’s life reflects evil because the evil spirit is present in his life. The following review of human experience dis- closes insuperable difficulties for Sociologists. In every age and clime, one beholds the individual begirt with sin, circumscribed with selfishness, en- shrouded with spiritual darkness, and crowned with in- describable misery. In every age and clime, one beholds the mind of man exhausting itself in the creation of instruments of death, the heart of man impoverishing itself in its loveless urges, the will of man desolating itself in its fratricidal strife, and the life of man endangering itself in the blind destructions of its own moorings. In every age and clime, one beholds humanity blindly [174] Att-But-BongELess Men forging its own chains, unwittingly creating its own manacles, and unknowingly bleeding its own heart. Finally, in every age and clime, one beholds the race carelessly wasting its own strength, universally deci- mating its man-power, aimlessly prostituting its own energies, and recklessly satisfying its baser passions. What mean these tragic and indisputable facts? How explain the fact that the race is universally set against itself? How account for the universal existence of such suffering, such sin, such strife, such race suicide, such shame, and such death ? Original darkness can’t be derived from original light. Accordingly, the following conclusion is inescap- able: Man’s bad conduct grows primarily out of his bad nature. What, then, can be said for Sociology? Must not the conclusion be that its premise is a groundless one, because it is founded upon missing facts? Now, what shall we say as to the factual foundation for the doctrine of Organic evolution. Do not the absent data observed above force the conclusion that Organic evolution 1s founded upon missing facts? Surely such a conclusion is inescapable. It should be remembered that the establishment of intermediate races between the ape and the modern man is indispensable if the evolution of man is demonstrable. It should further be remembered that the establishment of nature’s infallibility inescap- ably devolves upon Organic evolutionary adherents. Neither has been, nor can be, established. In fact all nature belies Organic evolution. In the light of definition previously adduced, it will be recalled that Organic evolution outlaws involution; that is, it outlaws the function of any force or forces out- [175] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? side of individuals or things in a state of actual. or potential development. Science reveals involutionary factors universally involved in development or progress. Witness the following data: The spore, in and of itself, is incapable of reproducing its kind. Accordingly, intrinsic law is not enough. The intrinsic life of the spore must be vitalized by extrinsic factors of nature. Matter and moisture are necessary to excite reproductive activities. Uninfluenced by external factors, spore development is impossible. The seed, in and of itself, is incapable of reproducing its kind. Natural law resident in the seed is inadequate to guarantee the reproduction and perpetuation of the specie. Apart from the stimulation of external factors all herb life would perish. With the vitalization of inner forces by external factors herbs reproduce and perpetuate themselves. Thus, it is seen that involution- ary factors are indispensable to plant development. The ovum, in and of itself, is incapable of repro- ducing its kind. Parthenogenesis, life from an egg- ovum, is to date a humanly non-demonstrable doctrine. By virtue of nature’s processes, it must ever be so. It takes an external factor, spermatozoon, to vitalize the ovum and thus guarantee reproduction. It is significant to note that the factors do not stop with the fertilization of the ovum. Once the new embryo appears its subse- quent development continues to be more or less depend- ent upon external factors. To illustrate, the embryo is carried, nourished, and protected by its mother life. Obviously, then, objective factors are necessary for animal and human development. The mind, in and of itself, is incapable of develop- [176] Aut-But-Bongeutess Men ment. Reaction psychology maintains that mental devel- opment is conditioned upon a relative role for stimuli. Accordingly, the potential mind becomes actual primarily through the operation of stimuli extrinsic to it. Re- action psychology further teaches that spiritual develop- ment is similarly conditioned. To make worshipful responses implies the existence of factors, physical and personal, outside of the individual to evoke them. Thus, mental and spiritual development involves involutionary factors. Now, in the light of these facts, will not all agree that the vegetable, the animal, and the human kingdoms all reveal indispensable involutionary roles in their repro- ductive processes. The dependence of inner forces upon outer factors for vitalization, most assuredly reveals a fundamental weakness in Organic evolution. In requir- ing outer factors for the vitalization of inner forces, nature sweeps aside a mainstay of Organic evolution and reveals the emptiness of the evolutionary hypothesis. The dependence of inner forces upon outer factors is not limited to organic life. Such influence is also revealed in cosmic forces and processes as well. The earth, in and of itself, is incapable of maintaining itself. Without the co-ordinated influences of other astral bodies upon it, its orbit would be eliminated and its life would be destroyed in a maze of incoherent activities. According to Astronomy it takes the opera- tion of external factors to guarantee the earth’s unity in action. Centrifugal and tidal phenomena actually reveal gravity in a unifying role. As already forecast this principle of behavior also holds true with all of the heavenly bodies. (177] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? Finally, the universe, in and of itself, is incapable of maintaining itself. In the light of previous findings, and in the light of logic, the universe is potentially incapable of purposeful behavior. There must be an ex- ternal force to operate upon it in order to vitalize its activities. To admit such a force, however, is to posit a Transcendent God. Logically and philosophically, it takes Infinite Life to vitalize natural law. Thus, the orderly activities of the heavens find adequate explana- tion only in an Infinite God. Accordingly, the Uni- verse’s processes are not vitalized by natural law but by Infinite Life. Now, the law of life appears in the activities described above. The law is as follows: Every response wn life ranging from the simplest to the most complex, or from the indwidual to the cosmos, 1s conditioned wpon the reciprocal and complementary roles of nature and nur- ture. In shutting life’s processes up to nature, Organic evolution ignores nurture and as a consequence the theory breaks down of itself. Organic evolutionists must insist on development by, and only by, forces intrinsic in nature or surrender their whole position. Viewing life from the angles of biology, astronomy, and experience, one can not escape the conclusion that it all belies the evolutionary hypothesis. Organic evolu- tion is founded upon missing facts. Evolution Is an Ultra-Scientific Doctrine In order to attest any fact, inductive science demands that the race subject it to observation, investigation, and experimentation. In this, one beholds the undoing of Organic evolution. It is actually impossible to bring [178] Auu-But-Bonguess Mien the hypothetical stages of evolutionary development under observation, investigation, and experimentation. For instance, man is impotent to transplant himself back into the yesterdays and observe ‘‘homo-simian”’ creatures living in the trees and clinging with their hands to branches thereof. He is equally impotent to investigate and experiment with men who are supposed to have lived twenty-five thousand years ago. If evolu- tionary data cannot be subjected to scientific procedure, then it is obviously an ultra-scientific doctrine. An objector obtrudes here and exclaims, ‘‘ Why this is nothing new. Modern scientists have known for a quarter of a century that Organic evolution cannot be demonstrated.’’ The author grants this. But he insists that the continual streams of books which are being turned out by modern educators and which are organized around the Organic evolutionary hypothesis are prima facie evidence that many educators do accept such evolu- tion to be true. While confessing Organic evolution to be ultra-scientific, they assume it to be a fact. It is the assumptions and not the confessions of modern scientists, which make it necessary to declare anew evolution to be an unscientific doctrine. Organic evolution is founded upon missing facts and the necessary intermediate races are all-but-boneless ones. [179] CHAPTER IX World’s Greatest Importunity NDIVIDUALS consciously standing in the midst of the present social order are acutely aware of the prevalence of unsocial tendencies. Upon surveying the prevailing chaos, they involuntarily exclaim, ‘‘Why so much antagonism? Why so much confusion? Why so much greed and graft? Why so much vice and crime? Why so much nationalism and intrigue ?’’ Following these surveys, many attempt to diagnose our social evils. As would be expected, disagreements arise over the nature and causes of existing social dis- orders. The disagreements are explained by the fact that every individual tends to see what he looks for. His scale of accepted values largely determines what he sees. Thus, his beliefs minimize, if not absolutely obscure, any set values not comprehended in his own. Looking through the lenses of their own philosophy, Organic evolutionists, on the one hand, tend to see only natural and material factors. And the idealists, on the other hand, tend to see only ideational and spiritual factors. There are, in reality, but two series of values in life; namely, material and spiritual. These values are re- spectively self-ward and other-ward in nature and function. Material values are egoistic. They are reflected by such terms as profit, property, strife, oppression, and re- [180] Wor.up’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY pression. These values are earmarks of materialism and milestones in the development of selfishness. They are the lustrous and lusterless phases of the rule of power, prestige, and gold. Under such a role, all issues are bread and butter issues, and all morals are natural morals. The road of materialism runs self-ward; its motto is get; its code of ethics is prudential; and its super-man is rightfully regnant. Spiritual values are altruistic. They are reflected by such terms as integrity, justice, peace, freedom, and fair play. These values are unerring symbols of spirituality ; indisputable earmarks of an other-regarding person- ality ; and imperishable monuments to the rule of love. Under such a rule, man does not live by bread alone. He transcends material values and nourishes his soul upon the ‘‘Bread of Life.’’ All selves are enjoined to think for others. ‘‘Seek not your own but your neighbor’s.”’ ‘‘Bear ye one another’s burden.’’ Manifestly, the road of spirituality runs other-ward; its motto is give; its code of ethics is humanitarian; and its humblest 1s roy- ally regnant. Now, it is obvious that representatives of these two schools of thought would render diametriec verdicts as to the cause and cure of present social chaos. It is equally obvious that each school, after reviewing human ills, would render diametric verdicts as to the world’s great- est importunity. The first group, looking at the social order through material lenses, finds material ills, and offers material remedies; while the second group, looking through spiritual lenses, finds spiritual ills, and offers spiritual remedies. The materialistic thinkers, in prescribing for human [181] Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? needs, really divide into two groups; namely, Behavior- istic and Socialistic. The one declares that the world’s ereatest importunity is Behavioristic education. The other avers that the world’s greatest need is a redistribu- tion of wealth and an equitable distribution of bread. The idealistic thinkers, in offering their prescription for social ills, also divide into two classes; namely, Idea- tionalists and Re-creationalists. The one says that knowledge is the world’s greatest importunity. The other avers that a new manhood is the world’s greatest need. Now, it is universally agreed, on the one hand, that the world should be rid of its social ills. It must also be agreed, on the other hand, that concerted human action cannot be secured for the elimination of the evils in the present order. What the enquirer really wants to know is, which, if any, of the above groups rightly prescribes for the world’s supreme need? A brief study of each of the proposed solvents will now follow. Physical Determinism and Human Succor The first materialistic group says that the world’s greatest importunity is Behavioristic education. Is it? Would automatic reactions to physical situations solve social problems? What is Behavioristic education, any- way, that it should be proposed as a solvent? It is a system of education based upon the concept that man is simply a highly developed mechanism. It con- fidently asserts that there is no line of demarcation be- tween man and the beasts. Hence, education should be predicated simply upon human reactions to physical environments. It follows from such assumptions that [182] WoRrLp’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY all things abstract would be divorced from the educa- tive process; hence, there would be no place for idealism, for ethical standards, for codes of honor, for the human will, for God. The goal of Behaviorism being the de- velopment of a perfectly trained human animal, the functions of ideals in teaching and in interpretation is precluded. It thus follows that the objective of Be- haviorism would be to control perfectly the adjustments and relationships of human beings by the control of their physical environments. Such a goal would be logical, if human life were but a complex series of reacting mechanisms; that is, if mankind were only of the earth earthy. Accordingly, the process of education would simply be automatic reaction; and the end of education would simply be unconscious perfection. With reference to these assumptions, it is readily ad- mitted that man is a reacting being, and that physical environments greatly influence his conduct. But facts do not sustain the assumption that the physical alone functions in the educative process. Central stimulation is assumed by most Reaction Psychologists of today. Woodworth boldly declares such a role for mentations. Ideational forces must be reckoned with. Man thinks as well as reacts physically. Ideals shape and motivate human activities. Physical environments only evoke human responses. Now, if ideas and ideals, as spiritual forces, influence human conduct, and if Behaviorism ignores them, then the dominance of Behaviorism would weaken and witness the passing of the race’s spiritual heritage. Behaviorism outlaws spiritual expression in education. Must students of human nature and nurture agree [183] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? that the development of a perfectly reacting human animal to a perfectly controlled physical environment is the world’s greatest need? Manifestly, no! The world’s greatest trouble is not physical; it is spiritual. With this conclusion the major portions of mankind coneur. To it, functional psychologists, ethicists, poets, litterateurs, historians, martyrs, patriots, and multitudes of churchmen subscribe. General Joffre expressed the dominating conviction of the race when he voted that - he was immortal. Mankind as a whole refuses to be placed categorically with the lower animals. Man is more than a bundle of nerves and connective nerve tissues. He is moral as well as material; volitional as well as reactional; and sovereign as well as subject. Unconscious perfection cannot satisfy him. Man is neither an unconscious nor a cringing slave. According to facts and consensus of opinion, man is not simply of the earth earthy. He is mental and spir- itual as well as physical. As above asserted, his chief social problems are spiritual rather than material. Granting this, Behaviorism would manifestly fail to succor the race because it would ignore the factors really contributing to civilization ; namely, spiritual factors. Economic Determinism and Human Succor The second materialistic group declares that the world’s greatest importunity is a redistribution of wealth and an equitable distribution of bread. Is it? Would the redistribution of the world’s accumulated wealth bring in the golden age of peace and prosperity ? Would the redistribution of wealth and an equitable dis- [184] Wor.p’s Greatest IMPORTUNITY tribution of bread change the motives and redirect the aptitudes of the race? Keonomie determinists declare that great estates are the bone of all evil; that the institutional life of mankind is a product and handmaiden of business; that all wars are money wars; and that all evils are money evils. They insist that 51 per cent of America’s wealth is owned by two per cent of its constituency; and that 83 1-3 per cent of American and European children are born with no other heritage than poverty. They further insist that great estates are not home builders; and that civi- lization resting upon such disproportions of wealth must sooner or later perish. It is readily admitted that the distribution of wealth is ill proportioned among men; and that the elimination of poverty and pauperism is coveted by all sane social thinkers. But the trouble with Marxian Socialism, as a social panacea, is it fads to get its bearings as to the role of money and the nature of man. Money is not the trouble with the race; it is the love of money. Any solvent of human ills which ignores the innate disposi- tion of man to covet wealth must be irremedial. Economie determination is its own indictment. The late Russian tragedy, born of an incomparable famine, is the true earmark of Socialism. Its impotency is demonstrated in the death of Russia’s starving millions. Such a disaster is monumental evidence of its selfish- ness. Sir Hall Caine declares that the late famine in Russia was the gravest disaster since the flood. In its last analysis, economic determinism is classism. An impartial student must conclude that all that 1t can ultimately guarantee is slavery and death. [185] Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? Wealth is essential, but it is not redemptive. Re- distribute wealth and it won’t stay put. It will flow again into the hands of the few. Such being true, wealth is thus shown to be impotent to bring permanent succor to social ills. Gold may requite many bodily desires but it is impotent to purge human souls. Economic determinists further maintain that the world must have bread. Would an equitable distribu- tion of bread bring order out of social chaos? Would a well-fed world integrate human forces, and establish harmonious and co-operative relationships? Would bread be a cure-all for our social diseases? Would a satisfied stomach estop wrong impulses, thoughts, and conduct ? That adequate bread would contribute toward social well-being none would deny. That adequate distribu- tion of bread would bring cheer and thanksgiving to teeming hungry multitudes, none would gainsay. What a blessing to nourish the world’s hungry hordes! While famines are in themselves grievously afflicting, resulting social, political, and economic disturbances are far more afflicting. Disease and deviltry, disaster and death run riot. Let the world be fed to-day! Satisfy all hunger now, and famine will return to-morrow! History shows that famines stalk and restalk over lands where the good Samaritan has carried succor. Obviously, then, the re- moval of hunger today is not a guarantee against its return to-morrow. It thus follows that the service of bread is a temporary one. A full stomach is physically satisfying, but it 1s not soul-cleansing and soul-nourish- ing. Its service is passing, not permanent. Above 1900 years ago the Sage of Sages declared, ‘‘Man does not [186] Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY live by bread alone.’’ He knew that bread was not a panacea for all social ills. Now, if the function of bread 1S a passing one, it is manifestly not the world’s greatest importunity. The above review of physical and economic determi- nism shows each to be lacking as a panacea for social ills. Each fails to measure up to social demands. Each pos- sesses inherent weaknesses which disqualify for indi- vidual and social redemption because each ignores the existence and function of spiritual factors in life. It is safe to say that any proposed panacea which does not take note of spiritual factors in life processes must fail. Man’s chief problems are demonstrably spiritual rather than material. The impotency of materialism is writ in its own nature. Now, if the prescriptions given by the materialistic groups fail as panaceas for human ills, then what about the prescriptions of the idealistic groups? The remedial claims of the latter follow below. Knowledge and Human Succor The world’s greatest importunity is knowledge, says the first Ideationalist. Is it? Is knowledge the social sol- vent? Is knowledge the way out of the matrix of chaos and death? Is knowledge redemptive? Is reason the human rescuer? Will knowledge bring peace and per- fection? Organic evolutionists say so. This knowledge group of would-be rescuers contest the claims of Behaviorism. These thinkers maintain that physical determinism ignores the fundamental functions of the mind. Man, they declare, knows, wills, and feels as well as he reacts physically. Hence, human menta- [187] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? tions should not be ignored in the solution of social problems. Organic evolutionists, however, while contesting the claims of Behaviorists, also oppose all aspects of super- naturalism in religion and education. Such an attitude is logical since Organic evolution divorces such. Ac- cording to this Darwinian mental pattern, man is simply an animal risen to the plane of consciousness. His life has been and is in a continual climb. He is neither naturally bad nor habitually good. What he needs is direction, not regeneration. To guarantee direction, ideal-social guidance must be provided through the learning process. Accordingly, increases in ethical cul- ture mean decreases in social ills. Ethical education thus appears in a role of redemption. Consequently, salvation becomes an end-result of mental and moral srowth. Therefore, enlightenment inescapably becomes the solvent of the race’s ills. Will the spread of knowledge solve our social prob- lems? What are social ills anyway? In the last analysis, they are evils, thought of in the aggregate, perpetuated by individuals. Then the problem is, Will education re- deem the individual? or Will knowledge change the nature of man? What does education do for man any- way? Obviously, the answer to this question should reveal the redemptive power of knowledge. Broadly speaking, education is a process and a state of habit formation. Habits, according to nature’s econ- omy, tend to become involuntary ; that is, learned activi- ties tend to be reduced to automatic centers in order to free the mind from consciously retaining and directing accumulated learning. Under such functions, man’s [188] Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY character would manifestly tend to become an organic summation of all his habits. The following question naturally obtrudes itself. What kind of habits then does education provide. They are physical, mental, and moral. Do these habits change the nature of man? Or, do they merely establish new co-ordinations within and give intensity to the original nature of man? So far as science knows, education can only modify, reset, reshape, or reform the elemental habit propensities of the individual. The significance of this function is disclosed when one looks at the nature of man. Man’s impulses are predominantly self-ward; his motives are universally -egoistic; and his desires are fundamentally the foundation of knowledge. Now, if egoistic desires universally predominate, then the in- erease of knowledge means the increase of selfishness. But selfishness, instead of being a panacea for social ills, is admittedly a source of social evils. Thus, knowl- edge is seen to be, not redemptive, but unregenerative. It is admitted that ideals motivate, but they do not re- create. Knowledge 1s good, and it is to be diligently sought, but rt 1s manifestly not the world’s greatest importumty. But knowledge brings peace, the Ideationalist further insists. Does it? Has the spread of knowledge been attended by increasing epochs of peace? Would such give the races of men spiritual equilibrium ? Pacifists maintain that peace is the undergirding principle of progress, and that it is only upon such a foundation that an enduring social structure can be erected. Would peace outlaw selfishness and purge human motives of their dross? Under its rule, would [189] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? prosperity become the everlasting boon of mankind? Would internal improvements become undying testi- monials for the alleviating solvency of human co-opera- tion? Would good will supplant intrigue? And would children be reared for service rather than the sword ? With reference to these questions, it must be admitted that peace is a panacea for some things. But what assur- ance has the race that disarmament, internal improvye- ments, financial solvency, and filial happiness would change the nature of man? Race experience offers none. Reason is impotent here. The peace solvent is, too, but a knowledge solvent, and its failure is writ in the im- potency of ideals to redeem. Human history amply demonstrates the impotency of the race to succor itself. A stream cannot rise higher than its source. Since the stream of humanity is the stream of carnality, its dip is naturally down. It must be admitted that the importunity for the re- distribution of wealth, for the elimination of famine, for the divorcement of war, and for the ideal-socialization of education, is a tremendous trumpet eall to the race, but it, too, must be admitted that neither of the above trumpet calls represents the supremest need of man. New Manhood and Human Succor The world’s greatest importunity 1s a new manhood, says the Re-creationalist. Is it? Is a new life essential to a solution of our problems? Is a new nature necessary to guarantee social well-being? Is a changed nature, new psychic elements, impulses and motives, the hope of the world? The need of all needs is a new manhood. A manhood [190] Worwp’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY that will make the rule of justice and truth inevitable; a manhood that will bring labor and eapital into mutually co-operative relationships; and a manhood that will Christianize education, extirpate famine, turn swords into plowshares, and establish democracy among men forever. Man who has been the menace of every age must become the panacea of this and subsequent ages. The problem of ail problems before the race 1s one of regeneration. How may man who daily carries hate and sensuality in his heart, who daily wades impure marshes of vice and erime, and who daily plunges into the depths of sin and shame, become the possessor of new love-impulses, new love-motives, and new love- programs? The Jailer faced these facts when he said to Paul and Silas, ‘‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’’ With refer- ence to regeneration, it should not be overlooked that any plan of redemption which does not take note of the fact of man’s depraved nature, a nature which daily plays the role of the bestial, must in the end fail. The manhood about which the poet regretfully sang: ‘‘What though the spicy breezes, Blow soft o’er Ceylon’s isle, Though every prospect pleases, And only man is vile.’’ is reproduced in this and every age. How may such a manhood be purged of its dross? How may the miracle of a changed nature be effected? Can it be attained by any agency natural to man? Let’s see. [191] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? The Impotency of Man The race has recourse to but three distinctly human processes for its succor and salvation; namely, natural worship, education, and works. Evidence will show that all of these are inadequate panaceas. Natural religion 1s impotent to regenerate man. The reason for this negative answer is simple. The nature and strength of natural religion are but the nature’and strength of man. The efficacy of nature worship is simply the efficacy of mental controls. The gods of nature worshippers are humanly created and their attri- butes are humanly assigned. Hence, man’s reactions to his imagined gods are but reactions to his own menta- tions. This simply means that man ean, through his created religions, lift himself but as high as himself. But by taking thought of himself, he cannot add one inch to his stature. He cannot put any more saving potency in a program for human cleansing than he him- ‘self possesses. Consequently, if man ever rises above himself, or if he ever attains unto a new nature, he must be aided by a power extrinsic to himself. Nature worship, being simply subjective, is not redemptive, but enslaving. By it, the race forges its own fetters. Education is impotent to regenerate man. Education is a process of multiplying, organizing, and integrating experiences. Structurally speaking, it is at any moment the sum of the connections in the nervous system formed through reactions to stimuli. According to Thorndyke, education is essentially the modification of original nature, and, according to Chatman and Counts, it is mental habits. Thus, through the learning process, the [192] Worwp’s Greatest IMpoRTUNITY race modifies its original nature, and develops habits of feeling, intellection, and action. These habits, however, are not re-creations. They are simply the modifications of original nature. -The most that the learning process can do for the individual is to reform, reset, and reshape the elements of his original nature, and, in turn, mini- mize or maximize individual reactions. The theory current today which claims that every impulse of man is good unless misdirected is quite spe- cious. By it, all that devolves upon mankind in order to secure social and individual redemption is to increase the accumulation of ethical knowledge and _ environ- mental controls. This theory is attractive, indeed. Al- though, a brief reference has already been made to this doctrine, a further elaboration of it is necessary. What is knowledge? Knowledge is the ‘‘summum bonum,’’ the greatest good, of the learning process. Not- withstanding this fact, it is impotent to succor humanity because it reflects the imperfections of the carnal nature through which it is acquired. Every impulse is not good. What then does the acquisition of knowledge do? It does not create a new creature, it only reforms the old creature. All of the degrees in the world are im- potent to re-create life. Degrees are but conventional appendages whose logical function is extraneous to the holder. Let it be remembered that if there is one ele- ment of weakness in human knowledge, that one element alone vitiates knowledge as a regenerative force. The maximum achievement of the learning process is an ethical and cultured carnality. What about ethics? Will ethics save? Ethics is the ‘“‘summum bonum’’ of human judgments. But human [193] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? judgments also reflect the imperfections of human nature. History shows that out of the most cultured and best regulated homes criminals come; and that the most thoughtful and careful parents have often found their children to be shamefully recreant to duty. The facts are: If you educate a thief, you will produce a profiteer ; if you educate an ignorant fool, you will produce an in- famous wiseacre; and if you educate a ‘‘pimp”’’ you will produce a white-slaver. Ethical education is good, we can’t have too much of the right kind, but it is not re- generative. All of the ethical standards in the world are impotent to re-create life. The impotency of human mentations to solve social and individual problems is universally patent. The irredemptive capacity of ideas and ideals is oppressingly manifest today. This age witnesses the greatest tragedy of all the ages. It is not the World War with its in- comparable losses; it is not the late ‘‘flu’’ with its in- describable ravages; it is not the famines of China and Russia with their incomparable sufferings. The late tragedy of tragedies is the break down of the moral and spiritual heritage of the race. Social, national, and international conventions have floundered. But what have conventions to do with mentations? The heart of knowledge is disclosed in its accumulated and approved ideas. Such approved ideas are simply ideals and standards, or sanctions and tabooes; in other words, conventions. Now, these conventions are the race’s spiritual governors, or its ideational moorings. They give form, color, limitation, motivation, and direc- tion to civilization. Destroy them and the race drifts. How account for the present floundering of conven- [194] Worwup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY tions? The explanation is simple: The destruction of ideals is realized through the same process as their de- velopment; namely, the learning process. If this is true, and true it must be, then the social ills of this age are direct products of the learning process. It thus appears that modern education has been destructive. By its materialism and self-ward training, it has cut the race’s moral and spiritual moorings, and has left humanity at the mercy of its own insatiable selfishness. This age in which knowledge reaches the zemth of «ts glory and science masters the world in its conquest, and this age in which knowledge clothes itself with a boasted ethical vesture and crowns itself with human light and altruism, is the one age of all ages which demonstrates beyond all peradventure the impotency of knowledge as a social solvent. The world’s boasted knowledge witnesses rts own failure. It was powerless to control the emotions of the race after the firing of a single shot wn the Balkans. It was powerless at The Hague to stop a conflagration that was destined to en- velop the whole world, and it is powerless now to stop wars. Under the regnancy of modern enlightenment, moral standards have been destroyed, social sanctions have been banned, international conventions have been ta- booed, immorality has been pandered, hatred and sus- picion have been planted, dragons’ teeth have been sown, death and deviltry have been cultivated, mental ener- gies have been dedicated to racial destruction, vice has been paraded as virtue, and Hell’s culture has been pro- jected as earth’s savior. Culture agencies flounder to- day. [195] Can An Evouutionist Br A CuristiaAn ? Why do not nations respect The Hague Tribunal:? International conventions have broken down! Why the present prevalence of chaos and civil war? National conventions have broken down! Why the small value of human lives and the prevalence of midnight ‘‘petting parties?’’ Social conventions have broken down! Why these series of indescribable tragedies? Human conven- tions have broken down! Let the earnest evolutionist look at the fruitage of his own social solvent; let the honestly-deceived modernist open his eyes and behold the discomfiture of his mentally ereated god; let the ever-present wiseacre discern the destruction of his own hands; and let the blatant fool, boasting himself of his knowledge and condescendingly excusing the orthodoxy of the layman on the grounds of his ignorance, look at his own hands and behold the blood of his fellows, and in turn let him look at the race and behold the ravages of his ideational achievements ! The verdict of History also affirms the impotency of knowledge. According to its judgment, knowledge has universally failed to succor the race and build abiding foundations. An intelligent survey of recorded human experience reveals science, Jurisprudence, natural philos- ophy, natural worship, and absolutism, all products of the mind, in fruitless attempts to stabilize social orders. Push back the frontiers of understanding but a few years and behold science lifting up The Hague Tribunal, a symbol of hope and peace to a war-torn and weary world. Under the orientation of its promises, many hearts sing for joy. Hope crowns the oppressed with garlands of deliverance. But this new hope is destined to be short-lived. A high school boy in the Balkans [196] Worup’s Greatest ImporRTUNITY pulls a trigger; a pistol shot is fired; a man falls; the race turns agog; and nations grapple groggily at each other’s throats. Ten million dead and one billion debt are incontestable witnesses to the failure of science to stabilize foundations. Push back the frontiers of understanding but a little further and behold Rome lifting up her head on the seven hills of the Tiber. Through organization and con- quest she extends her borders unto the known parts of the earth. Wonderful in jurisprudence and powerful in might, she bids fair to perpetuate her institutions and her social order. But, sin and selfishness sap her strength. Weakened by selfish indulgences, she feebly faces an enemy without. Alaric beats upon her gates; the walls are razed to the ground; and the Dark Ages are born. History witnesses Rome’s finish and declares the Dark Ages to be undying testimonials to the failure of jurisprudence to save a civilization. Push back the frontiers of understanding but a little further and behold the Hellenes, proud, buoyant, exub- erant, and effervescing Hellenes, rounding out a wonder- ful commonwealth. Under the tutelage of Protagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno, they ereate a civilization founded upon natural philosophy. Through exalting nature and its beauties and through emphasizing this world and the present, they produce a social order unequalled in its art and unparalleled in material splendor. Their natural philosophy reflects it- self in every aspect of their social and institutional life. Look at Greece to-day and behold the ruins of a mighty past. The faded glory of her yesterdays is prima facie [197] Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? evidence of the failure of natural philosophy to save a civilization. Push back the frontiers of understanding but a little further and behold Syria erecting an extended common- wealth. Great in her zeal and in her natural science, she carves her ideals into stone. Her architecture reaches such dazzling heights in its manipulation and perfection that the world looks on today in amazement. Envisage, if you will, her majestic ruins, silent and dis- mal, yet they bear tragic testimony. The ruins of Syria today unquestionably attest the failure of natural wor- ship to save a civilization. Push back the frontiers of understanding but one step further and behold Egypt, cultural, architectural, and scientific Egypt, creating a civil and material common- wealth. Her kings, drunk with power and enraptured with personal ambitions, commandeer hosts of the land and erect pyramids as final resting places. These monu- ments, symbols of vainglory and tyranny, mark the zenith of absolutism in the social life of the race. Stand hard by the pyramids today and behold the sand-blasts of the deserts slowly but surely wear their strength away. ‘Grizzly, ghastly, and ghostly,’’ they stand as undying witnesses to the failure of absolutism to save a civiliza- tion. Thus, History, in turning back the pages of man’s yesterdays, reveals the impotency of science, juris- prudence, natural philosophy, natural worship, and ab- solutism to save civilization. Accordingly, knowledge as a social solvent stands indicted by recorded human experience. Surely, in the face of these facts, humanity [198] Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY can ill afford to commit itself entirely to the potency and direction of knowledge. Organic evolution is selfishness and its functions are inevitably destructive. Selfishness promotes death. There are no crimes so heinous, no deeds so dirty, no thoughts so contemptible, no loves so debased, no desire so sensuous, no ambitions so low, and no acts so bestial, but that they flourish in the sow of evolutionary culture. This age with its halo of intellectual light discloses vistas of incomparable suffering and chaos. The present break-down in social conventions is monumental and un- deniable evidence of the impotency of knowledge in mediating salvation. Exit knowledge! Works are also impotent to regenerate. Good works are the ‘‘summum bonum’’ of human conduct. They produce habits founded upon imperfect natures. Hu- ~ man nature being universally imperfect, human acts are universally imperfect. If human conduct reflects a single element of imperfection, then all the works in all the world are inadequate to raise mankind to a plane of perfection. For the race to escape its sorrows and sufferings, it must attain unto a state of perfection. To realize such a state the race must rise above itself. To rise above itself, it must be aided by a power transcen- dent to its own. Now, since the race in and of itself is unable to lift itself above itself, its hopes for suc- coring itself are doomed to perpetual disappointment. The greatest height to which human endeavor ean lift mankind is the summit of altruism. Altruism, while the highest expression of man’s native equipment, roots it- self in imperfect nature. Works, therefore, must be wm- potent to save. [199] Can An Evouutionist Bz A CuHristTIAN? Now, if nature worship, ethical education, and good works are all impotent to regenerate mankind, and if these exhaust the native means of man to effect his own salvation, what about Organic evolutionists’ boasted claim, ‘‘Man must lift himself by his own bootstraps?’’ Whither shall he turn if all things earthly and human fail? There is but one alternative left: Heaven must be invoked. Humanity must turn to God’s Christ. The hope of mankind is the God-man. The wise will accept Christ’s impeachment of the social order and promise of succor when he said, ‘‘And I, if I be lifted up will draw all men unto me.’’ Objectors obtrude here and protest this claim for Christ. They insist that Organic evolution is mani- festly the mode of creation, and that such a mode neces- sarily negates the deity of Jesus. Accordingly, Christ becomes a human being, a mere mutation of the Homo- Sapiens stock. Or He becomes a genius, a super-man in religion. Hence, they insist that Christ worship is idol- atry, and that implicit faith in Him is against progress. Christ worship thus ties the hands of the present with the ‘‘dead hands of the past.’’ Moreover, these errant Christians, and enemies of the Cross, boldly aver that ‘‘Christianity is slowly dying’’ and calmly declare that its slow death refutes the deity of Jesus Christ. With reference to this last imputation, it is but fair to state that atheists and evolutionists alone are able to observe such a phenomenon. The reason that Chris- tianity appears to them to be dying grows out of the fact that true spiritual perspectives are scarcely dis- cernible through quasi-spiritual lenses, When the smoke of materialism bedims the lenses of the soul, the indi- [200] Wor_p’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY vidual looking from the low ground of naturalism has a very limited outlook. If atheists and evolutionists would exchange their material lenses for spiritual ones and then do sentry work, they would discover that Chris- tianity is robust and strong. It should be remembered that it is only the blind and dying who are now digging the grave and writing the funeral dirge of Christianity. That the citadel of Christianity is being stormed and besieged by atheists and evolutionists, no one conversant with current movements would deny; that the absence of multitudes from church activities is a very grave prob- lem for Christian forces, none can gainsay; and that these tendencies subject humanity to unsocial influences all agree. Notwithstanding these tendencies, Chris- tianity is the most vital fact of this age. It should be observed that the failure of atheists and evolutionists to observe Christian growth for the race is no argument against it, because the carnal mind can- not perceive spiritual realities. The carnal mind seeks for signs while the spiritual mind walks by faith; hence it turns to Christ. The All-Sufficiency of Jesus or Christ the Source of New Manhood There are three outstanding reasons why Jesus of Nazareth is the source of new manhood. Simply stated, the reasons are as follows: (1) He alone has perfect re-creating power. (2) He alone has true re-motivating power. (3) He alone has sure re-organizing power. Christ alone has perfect re-creating power. In such [201] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? virtue, one is able to discern the real basis for a new manhood. Christ who created man from the dust and gave him a dynamic spirit-life is able to re-create fallen man and restore to him his lost spiritual life. That Christ Jesus has the power to re-create a soul is attested both by the Bible and by Christian experience. How does He do it? ‘‘The wind bloweth where it list- eth, thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth, so is every one that is born of the spirit.’’ Now, when Christ says, ‘‘Ye must be born again,’’ He declares the necessity of re-creation. When He says, ‘‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have eternal life,’’ He enunciates the condi- tion of re-creation. And, when He declares, ‘‘I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me,’’ He proclaims Himself to be the only means of re-creation. His re-creative power is widely attested. Isaiah says, ‘‘Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sor- rows: yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgres- sions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastise- ment of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.’’ Paul says, ‘‘To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever be- lieveth in him shall receive the remission of sins.’’? John says, ‘‘The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sins.’’ Peter says, ‘‘ Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’’ The re- [202] Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY deemed say, ‘““What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.’’ Now these declarations stump liberalists. They have depths to which Organic evolutionists cannot dive, and heights to which they cannot climb. It takes faith to dive such depths and to climb such heights. The carnal mind is fettered, but faith knows no shackles. Search the world for tangible power to create or to re-create life and your quest is in vain. The wisdom of the past and the present has proven helpless in all such attempts. Individual experiments have absolutely failed. Science to date throws up the white flag of sur- render. Why these failures? The answer is obvious: The power to re-create life is not a possession of the vessel: such power alone belongs to the potter. The potter can and does create and re-create. Unnumbered millions will so attest. His work of re-creation is per- fectly and completely done. Christ alone has true re-motivating power. The Son of God does not stop with refashioning the human vessel and purging it of its dross, but He bequeaths to it a new spiritual dynamic for up-grade travel. Now, love and life-impelling motives supplant hate and life-destroying motives. The question is raised, How does Christ bestow upon man a new set of love and life-impelling motives? The answer to this interrogation is simply this, ‘‘The King- dom of God is within you.’’ Christ, in regenerating the souls of men, enthrones Himself in the heart of the re- venerated. Herein is seen the explanation of true re- motivation. The re-created aspires to do what Christ within aspires to do, Christ in him aspires for him. [203] Can Aw Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? Hence, the work of the re-created is not his but it is the work of Christ in him. Human beings, under the urge of their nature and ideals, can only rise to the summit of their ethical strength. Man without Christ is a heathen; man with Christ is Christian. Man re-motivated by Christ is actuated by love because Christ is love; and he is actuated by power because Christ 1s power. Benjamin Kidd, an eminent Englishman, declares, ‘‘Christ is the greatest power center of all the ages.’’ Christ alone is man’s true re-motivation. He turns man’s thoughts and acts away from self and thus impels other-regarding conduct. Christ alone is the sure re-orgamzing power. It is now seen that the steps of Christ’s work are progressive. In the first place, He re-creates; in the second, He re- motivates; and, in the third, He re-organizes human lives. Christ the Savior is Christ the Lord. His cleans- ing and impelling hand becomes a guiding hand. More- over, His guiding hand is a sure one. He guides in the processes of re-adjustments, and supervises the life’s program because He enthrones Himself within the re- deemed. Christ, having all understanding and all power, can sanely and surely supervise the lives of the saved, and guide them into new love-programs for the redemp- tion of mankind. Man by nature thinks and acts in terms of self. Man, through Christ’s nature, thinks and. acts away from self. Without Christ, man’s thoughts, aspirations, and acts are naturally self-regarding. With Christ, man’s im- pulses, aspirations, and acts are actually other-regard- ing. Hence, Christ is the source of the character or the [204] Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY new manhood needed as a solvent of our social ills. Christ alone enables man to love neighbor as himself. While the re-creating, re-motivating, and re-organiz- ing power of Christ is contested by Organic evolution- ists, modernists, and positivists, the author believes that so long as they storm the citadel of Christ’s deity, Saviorhood, and Lordship, with weapons manufactured from the four bones of Pithecanthropus-Erectus, they do little less than affront truth. Real science is not built upon inferences at long or short distances, but it is built upon facts, present and inclusive. The aspersions of the intellectuals are groundless. If they but knew Him they would have a new song. [205] CHAPTER X Law Versus Life WORLD survey discloses an Intellectual-Religious war impending. It reveals belligerents in councils of war, and shows active mobilization from the ends of the earth. The survey discloses two constantly enlarging and world-encireling battle camps. It reveals many advance skirmishes which are anticipatory and prophetie of the coming conflict, and shows regal forces ready to grapple in a decisive struggle. Naturalists and supernaturalists are now pitching a royal battle. Two systems of thought so diametrically opposed to each other as these cannot long share the same world. A decisive conflict is inevitable because their principles are irreconcilable. The first system gives right-of-way to natural law. The second gives pre- eminence to Infinite Life. The one indicts Heaven as an interference. The other invokes Heaven as an aid. The one centers human destiny in human endeavor. The other centers human destiny in a supernatural Savior. To the one, man is absolutely sovereign. To the other, he is relatively subject. The first assumes a negative attitude toward revelation, incarnation, verbal inspira- tion, and blood redemption. The second affirms each of these Christian verities, and maintains that their denial means the destruction of Christianity. The two systems being diametrically opposite in their nature and fune- [206] Law Versus Lire tion, naturally bring their followers into conflicting rela- tionships. It is not a pleasant fact to find naturalists and super- naturalists pitted against each other, but such is now becoming a tremendous fact. The conflict is destined to be a decisive one. The character of the combatants is of immediate con- cern to those who seek to anticipate the results of this mind and heart war as well as to those who must share its consequences. Law On the one side, naturalists, believers in the dominion of natural law, are many and strong. Their leaders are an enviable group. They are scholarly anc hard-work- ing. They represent the acme of human knowledge and skill, and as a rule, do not lack moral uprightness and integrity. To them, the universe is a dynamic center, a natural cause, and an unfolding law. These present-day intellectuals, often errant Chris- tians and invariably Organic evolutionists, have been for half a century gathering adherents, organizing war units, and assembling material for the impending conflict. Their position has been greatly strengthened by the public, which has unwittingly paid their bills while they buttressed their new theology against the possible attacks of orthodox Christians. As a rule, these naturalists, or evolutionists, are an intellectually sustained group. They scoff at the in- efficiency of organized church life and laugh at the anathemas hurled at them by church pulpiteers. They, like Goliath of old, issue morning challenges to the army [207] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? of God. These challenges abound in modern psycholo- gies, biologies, sociologies, and philosophies, and are veritable spear thrusts into the body of Christianity; yea, they are more, they are like the poisoned arrows of savage Bushmen which do more than cut. These leaders not only issue morning challenges to the army of God, but they demand an unconditional surrender. They maintain that present-day church organizations are archaic and that they must give way to socially grounded and socially directed religious bodies. Social salvation, and not individual, is their goal. Through law, they declare that man can and must ‘‘lift himself by his own bootstraps.’ At first sight, these champions of law present an array of confidence and security. They are apparently an imperturbed group. They appear to be contentedly intrenched behind the walls of humanly constructed realities, modern science. They are admittedly worthy antagonists, yet not necessarily unconquerable ones, Life On the other side, supernaturalists, believers in the dominion of Infinite Life, are commendably large. Their possible educational lack is more than compensated by the character of their leadership. They do not boast of their great learning, many there are, however, whose intellectual equipment equals that of the most learned among the naturalists, but they represent the acme of wisdom and skill, a combination invincible in war. To them, the universe is God’s footstool, a natural and secondary cause, and an unfolder of bestowed law. The first glimpse, however, of the orthodox church [208] - ’ 8 te a Law Versus Lire forces shows them up at a disadvantage. Their lines are temporarily broken because many have gone out who were not of them. Others, religious pimps, lower the morale of supernaturalists by their soft pedal leadership. Doubts are shared by some as to the final outcome. The leaders, although their prowess has been nobly estab- lished upon many battle fields, parry at first, and fail to meet the enemy upon his challenged ground. A closer view of the supernaturalists reveals a differ- ent picture indeed. Great activity 1s seen among their ranks. The deflection turns out for good. ‘‘ All things work together for good to them that love God.’’ There is a consequent drawing-in of their lines. Compactness is being realized. The suddenness and decisiveness of the re-alignment are somewhat disturbing to the naturalists, who vaguely feel that something is going wrong. ‘This is evidenced in their complaints against defense movements of ortho- dox Christians. No doubt their qualms would be greatly increased if they but realized that their lines were being observed through the lenses of Heaven, and that the flashlight of omniscience daily betrays their order of battle. Along with these rather disconcerting experiences for naturalists another entirely different set is being expe- rienced by supernaturalists. A new conviction grips them. A new decision seizes them. More and more they exclaim, ‘‘Come what may! Let come scorn, scoffs, rail- ings, derogations, opprobrium, or what not! Let ration- alizers and materializers dub us old-fashioned, out-of- date, ignoramuses, back numbers, moss-backs, or reli- oious quacks; we’ll stand true to our guns, and to God’s [209] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? program. We'll die, if need be, that Christ may be exalted as Lord and Savior; that truth may be regnant among men; and that Christianity, God’s revealed reli- gion, may possess the earth!’’ The new morale is marked by equanimity and seriousness. Orthodox leaders con- fidently busy themselves for battle. The Cause But why all this ado? How explain the mobilizing activities of each group? Many factors are obviously involved. All, however, may be reduced to one general statement, to-wit: Naturalists, in fostering what they deem to be a sane social program for social alleviation and redemption, seek to foist upon christendom a ration- alized natural religion. Evidence of this purpose is abundant. A single quota- tion will serve as an illustration. W. H. Wood, Dart- mouth College, in his book, ‘‘The Religion of Science,’’ very succinetly declares: ‘“The sacred book is nature. It is independent, self- existent, self-moving, creative. There is one test of in- spiration and truth. That is being true to nature. ‘‘Matter is eternally conserved. So is energy. Energy is fixed in amount. ‘‘Nature is a great mechanism. Its parts are con- nected. ‘‘Nature is uniform, rational, objectively real.’’ * * * ‘*T believe in Evolution. ‘*T believe in scientific method. ‘*A radical religion is the highest type. ‘* Religion is the product of evolution. It arose in and developed with the emotions. Religion probably emerged out of fear. [210] Law Versus Lirs ‘‘God is a symbol of that which faith finds beyond where science ends. Science itself finds no God. It affirms no creative act. The chain of cause and effect extending back ad infinitum excludes the idea of the creation of the world and man.’’ This quotation demonstrates beyond peradventure that naturalism unquestionably challenges supernatural- ism and that its application to life plays down the sovereignty of God, the deity of Christ, the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, and the efficacy of the blood. Such a role is manifestly a spear-thrust into the vitals of absolute truth. The social gospel is a natural one. Its fundamental tenet is, Live according to law. In accepting naturalism as a basis for the explanation of all facts appearing in life’s processes, one can do nothing less than assume all religions to be natural and social. It is infinitely impor- tant for Christians to remember that naturalism sanc- tions only natural law and outlaws ever Infinite Life. Herein is disclosed the reason for the belligerent activi- ties of supernaturalists. The social gospel is the very antithesis of revealed religion. It is only too obvious that just in proportion as naturalists succeed in putting over their program of rationalizing and materializing Christianity, the death knell is being sounded for Christ’s leadership among men. Naturalists are mobi- lizing; orthodox Christians must fight! Characteristics But what is the nature of the principles involved? What is their significance? A brief review of the prin- ciples for which these fighting camps are being pitched [211] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? will now be made. Approaches to the interpretation of religious data are two-fold; namely, law and life, or nature and revelation. These approaches very clearly reveal the foundation for divergences of thought. In approaching the interpretation of religious phe- nomena through law, naturalists tend to materialize worship. Under such limitations religion becomes com- pletely human. Its tones are markedly this-worldly. Accordingly, supernaturalism is abhorred and conse- quently debarred. Present-day naturalists, however, divide into two wings: The one, Atheistic, or Fortuitous evolutionists, courageously accepts the logic of its premise and, in turn, frankly denies the existence of a personal God. This wing is to be admired, not for its judgment, but for its courage. A graphical illustration of Atheistic evolu- tion is submitted below. The graph shows that increase in knowledge is attended by decrease in the forms of worship, and that the ultimate religious state of the race is a state of Atheism. The other, Ethical, or Orthogene- tic evolutionists, unquestionably dodges the logie of its premise and, in turn, posits a natural God. While accepting Organic evolution in toto, this wing affirms the existence of God, but assumes Him to be simply nature. In other words, it personalizes the universe. This is obviously a compromise position. It is full of carefully concealed pitfalls. The gospel of the latter is the social gospel. It is the Devil’s trump card in his life-long religious gamble. In it, he most surely poses as an ‘‘angel of light.’’ As a rule, subsequent references to naturalists or to [212] i i i Law Versus LiFe naturalism will refer to Orthogenetic evolutionists, one wing of Organic evolutionists. Belligerent Issues In order to understand the present-day religious significance of naturalism, one must understand the bearing of Organic evolution upon worship. As pre- viously seen, such evolution champions natural law as the creating and controlling factor in the universe, and in doing so, logically discounts God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, sin, and salvation from above. In short, it dis- counts supernaturalism. Natural law discounts God. Accepting its absolute dominion, law reduces God to the universe. He is its erand totality, its processes and its products. Accord- ingly, God is matter; God is energy ; God is mind, only in man; but, above all, God is evolution. Now, if God is the sum total of all of the processes and the products of the universe, then He is simply personalized nature. Accordingly, Pantheism is the religion of natural law. While identifying God with law, naturalism seeks to describe Him from two points of view: First, it portrays Him as an inconstant value, never an absolute reality. He is always becoming. Second, it clothes and fills Him with relative attributes, each of which is created and assigned by men who cannot know and fellowship Him personally. Now, if God, existing, establishes no per- sonal contacts with the race, then the only alternative left for human beings is to imagine, through experience, the attributes of such an unknown and unknowable God, and, in turn, assign them to Him. [213] MENTAL EVOLUTION and ‘The Elimination of Religions Cr rr rr nn en rn rm rn ma rn ner ents cee ne cen nm on nng : MANAISM : ‘ (Original religious state) All things—obyjects of worship ANIMISM Major things—objects of worship TOTEMISM Elusive animals—objects of worship ANCESTRAL WORSHIP Fathers—objects of worship POLYTHEISM Worship of many Gods HENOTHEISM National God MONOTHEISM One God ATHEISM ‘ NoGod /¢ \ ‘ ‘ The ultimate state of evolutionary religion is Atheism Law Versus Lire The thoughtful cannot refrain from raising the ques- tion, Why care about a God who is unknown and un- knowable? Why seek the favors of such an indifferent God? Why do homage to One who is prepared to elim- inate individuals by means of natural selection the moment imperfections appear, even though individuals themselves are not to blame? Obviously, the masses cannot look with favor upon such a God. Granting the existence of God, the premise of naturalism logically makes Him to exist, not as sovereign, but as subject. He is the race’s natural capital, to be used in purchasing its freedom from social chains. In identifying God with law, naturalism denies that He is both transcendent to and immanent in it. This position implies that there is no such place as a spirit world. Accepting its implication, there can be no need for other-worldly preachments. Such a delimitation of God minimizes Him and destroys His great world called Heaven. If God is not transcendent, then there can be no plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, no revelations, no special visions, no God incarnate, no regeneration from above, no blood redemption. In fact there can be no such thing as the fall, the sin, or the supernatural Savior. Naturalism reduces God to the role of a heartless brute. This conclusion is inescapable when once man admits the doctrine of ‘‘natural selection.’’ According to natural selection, God evolves the fittest through elimination and selection. He eliminates the unfit by means of war, famine, disease, sin, and death, and establishes the fit by preserving and selecting the higher forms of life. From this procedure, it is quite obvious [215] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? that God is not empathetic. The unfortunates, the born- shorts, the hapless, and the helpless, all go down beneath His ruthless axes of elimination. Such a God is not a God of love; He is simply a God of processes and products. But, orthodox Christians, believers in Infinite Life, while accepting natural development within limits, deny that naturalism is adequate to explain all of the facts in life’s processes. In overlooking the phenomena of supernaturalism it fails to qualify. Orthodox Christians insist that an intelligent God would communicate with intelligent creatures; that this role would manifest itself in constant fellowship between the finite and the Infi- nite; and that God in this fellowship would reveal His will to man in both words and deeds. Orthodox Christians deny that the universe is God. They insist that the universe is to God what the vessel is to the potter. It being God’s footstool, He cannot be limited to it. To them, He is both transcendent to and immanent in the universe. To make God the uni- verse is to materialize Him; to materialize Him is to heathenize Him; and to heathenize Him is to paganize Christianity. Such a delimitation manifestly destroys deity and outrages God. Orthodox Christians deny that God is a series of in- definite values, varying with human idealizations and appraisals. They maintain that God is absolute; that He represents in His matchless personality innate values, not assigned ones; that He embodies in Himself the ultimate realization of righteous processes; that in Him all eternity is present; and, morever, that in Him is the sum of all absolute values. Irrespective of human igno- [216] Law Versus Lirrt rance or arrogance, idealization or appraisals, He works intelligently, not blindly, justly, not criminally, lov- ingly, not brutally. Orthodox Christians stand for the transcendency of God as well as for His immanence. Such a doctrine pro- vides an adequate foundation for the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, revelations, incarnation, resurrection, ascension, etc. God being transcendent to as well as immanent in the universe, He can enter nature from without, can reveal Himself to human beings, and can regenerate from above. Accordingly, God is sovereign and absolute. It is important to remember that if God is the universe; that is, if He is the sum total of its processes and products, then He is but a giant slave who has forged His own fetters. Hence, according to law, He is abject, not absolute, subject, not sovereign. Natural law discounts Christ. Accepting its absolute dominion, law discounts the deity of Jesus, According to naturalism, Christ is but a man. In attempting to account for Christ’s transcendent personality, natural- ists insist that He was but a religious genius, a variant of natural selection, a super-man; that by virtue of His extraordinary nervous co-ordinations He was able to epitomize the religious experiences of the races of men; and that by a process of detached thinking He was able to issue new religious concepts, to formulate a new ethical system, and to initiate a new religious movement for the complete socialization of the world. These thinkers assert that Christ marks the pinnacle of religious leadership. While bestowing this laurel upon Him, they regularly assume that He must be classed with Confucius, Gautama, and Mohammed; that [217] Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? he is to religion what Darwin is to Biology, Newton to Physics, and Comte to Sociology; and that Christ is divine only in the sense that man is divine. A natu- ralist lately said to the author, ‘‘The glory of Jesus is He is like me.’’ Such present-day thinkers discount the doc- trine of a supernatural Christ, because Organic evolu- tion outlaws the God-man tenet. They admit, however, that Christ more nearly approximates the attributes of deity than any other creature known to man. Naturalists maintain that the Bible record concerning His birth is but a religious myth common to all religions ; that His miracles are but super-physical acts; and that His salvation is but an ethical one. Accordingly, His ideals and standards save, not His life and blood. There- fore, Christ should be honored as a religious genius, but not worshipped as Savior and King. But, supernaturalists, believers in Infinite Life, deny that Christ is simply a human being. To them, the terms ‘‘oenius,’’ ‘‘mutant,’’ or ‘‘variant’’ fall infinitely short of explaining His incomparable life. They insist that His life belies the above imputations; that His labors transcend infinitely that of any historical or modern genius; that His way is one of wonders, marvels, and miracles; and that His fields of endeavors are ever strewn with glorious supra-human service. Supernatu- ralists point out that the achievements of geniuses are ever attended by mistakes, blunders, and failures, and they invite Organic evolutionists to set the intelligence, wisdom, power, and love of their historical and modern super-men up beside the intelligence, wisdom, power, and love of Christ. In comparison, the super-men most surely pale into nothingness. Christ’s whole life exem- [218] Law Versus Lirr plifies both His humanity and His deity. He is supra- human in intelligence, in wisdom, in power, and in love. He is God incarnate. The most that can be said for the genius is that he is a complex of will to do, and perhaps, a born-long in his neural structure. Orthodox Christians maintain that Christ - is the Son of God. They insist that He was sent from above; that He is God’s’ Word revealed in the flesh; that He is the exegesis of God’s nature and purpose; that He is co- existent and co-equal with God; and finally, that He is love’s crown, Heaven’s adoration, and earth’s salvation. Orthodox Christians maintain that Christ is the way of progress. They assert that He is the highway to real success because He is the source of peace, prosperity, and good will. The way of Christ is the way of achieve- ment. Orthodox Christians maintain that Christ is the way of knowledge and wisdom. Do you seek these? Go to Christ. Do you seek truth? Go to Christ. Truth is reality; Christ is absolutely real. The light of His understanding is the surest beacon for man as he ex- plores the wilderness of the unknown. Pilate stood in the presence of Truth and didn’t know it. Christ is truth. As scientists discover new truth, they look upon elements which point to Christ. ‘‘He is before all things and in Him all things consist.’’ Col. 1:17. The laws which hold the universe together are Christ’s power co-ordinating, controlling, and directing life’s processes. Continuity is unquestionably grounded in Infinite Life, not natural law. Orthodox Christians maintain that Christ is the way of life. ‘‘I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man [219] Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRristiIan? cometh unto the Father but by me.’’ Human redemp- tion here appears as individual and personal. It fol- lows from this that society can be redeemed only through the redemption of the individual. Thus social redemption comes, not by group salvation, but by indi- vidual salvation; not by changing the thinking of the aggregate but by changing the nature of the individual in the aggregate. By the ‘washing of regeneration’”’ individuals are made clean. ‘‘The blood of Jesus Christ His Son eleanseth us from all sin.’’ Finally, orthodox Christians maintain that Christ is the epitome of God’s past, present, and future; that He is the summation of God’s power, knowledge, and love; that He is the complete embodiment of truth, the trans- cendent power center of the ages, the generalissimo of the blood redeemed, and the beacon light for the lost world; and finally that He is the friend of the oppressed, the Savior of the despairing, and the sovereign of truth and righteousness. Such a Christ is the hope of a sinful and chaotic world. Natural law discounts the Holy Spirit. Accepting its absolute dominion, law discounts the third person of the Trinity. The regnance of natural law certainly denies the rule of Infinite Life. Even to admit God to be a process destroys the concept of Trinity. Accord- ingly, the Holy Spirit does not actually exist as a per- son. He is but a fictitious character created by the fertile imagination of Hebrew geniuses. Being a quasi- personality, His attributes are purely assigned ones. It is wise to remember that should naturalists admit the existence of the Holy Spirit, that such an admission would logically surrender their whole position. Now, [220] if Law Versus Lirr the only possible service to be rendered by such a quasi- personality would be disclosed in the reactions people make to Him, their imaginary instructor, comforter, and euide. But, supernaturalists, believers in Infinite Life, con- test the position of naturalists who deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. They stoutly insist that Reason and Philosophy demand the existence of a third person in the Trinity; that He reveals Himself in the role of an instructor, interpreter, and guide; that He works pro- eressively and graciously among the sons of men; and that He stands between consciences and overt acts of gcuilt and back of consciences and outward acts of good. Much sacrifice and service are inexplicable apart from His existence and influence. He is a wooer and winner of souls unto righteousness. Natural law discounts sin. Accepting its absolute dominion, law discounts sin. Naturalism assumes that man’s nature is not tainted by the sin principle. It asserts that every impulse of original nature is right unless misdirected. Herein is revealed the bed-rock foundation of modernism, or the natural basis for cul- tural salvation. Jt follows from ths assumption that human control of human reactions 1s the only necessary solvent for social ills. Accordingly, sin is not bad; it is just a mistake, a mal-adjustment, a mere manifestation of ignorance; and war, famine, disease, and death, vice, murder, and crime are but breakdowns in the mutually adapted reactions within group life. Social evils are simply mal-adjustments growing out of human ignor- ance, not out of evil natures. But supernaturalists, believers in Infinite Life, main- [221 | Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? tain that sin is more than a mistake or a symbol of ignorance. They contest the claim of naturalists which asserts, ‘‘Every impulse of original nature is right un- less misdirected.’’ If evil is uninfluenced by original nature, then how account for the appearance and reg- — nance of evil, or the existence of an imperfect environ- ment? In the light of human experience, naturalists must admit that nature pulled a bone by failing to equip man for perfect reactions upon his entrance into the human world; or else, they must disavow their premise. They might deny the existence of imperfections in hu- man nature and environment, but facts would imme- diately become oppressively embarrassing. To attempt to secure perfection with an imperfect instrument means shipwreck. Such a means, however, is all that natur- alists can offer for human succor. Orthodox Christians further contest the position of naturalists who posit war, famine, and death, vice, mur- der, and crime as mere manifestations of ignorance. They insist that if God uses war, famine, and death, vice, murder, and crime to eliminate the unfit, then He be- comes the author of the gravest evils of society. Accord- ingly, there are no trials and tribulations, no heartaches and sorrows, no vices and crimes, no songs of hate and dances of death that must not be laid at the door of God. Justice, however, frees God from such a dastardly role. Sense liberates him from the ranks of the brutes. Human consciences extol Him as Lord. Orthodox Christians further maintain that sin is the result of the fall; that it is born of wrong nature under the influence of evil nurture; that it is a violation of God’s eternal law; that it is a terrible and tragic reality ; [222] Law Versus Lire and that it blasts human hopes and dwarfs human hearts. They assert that the hope of the race is not in its own nature, but in changing its nature. If their con- tentions are true, then the implications of naturalism making God the author and agent of war, famine, death, vice, murder, and crime are but travesties upon His Holy Majesty. God is not simply a God of processes and products; He is also a God of intelligence, justice, and love. Natural law discounts salvation from above.