Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    March 25, 1884

    “‘Evolution’ and Evolution. (Concluded.)” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 61, 13, pp. 194, 195.

    BY ELD. A. T. JONES

    (Concluded).

    NOW just a few words before closing, upon the foundation of Evolution. In the first part of this article is a quotation of the words of a, then, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, saying that he “should regard a teacher of science who denied the truth of evolution as being as incompetent as one who doubted the Copernican theory.” Does this President mean to assert that the theory of evolution is as well established as is the Copernican theory? If so, will he or any other evolutionist please give us three laws in proof of it that will correspond to Kepler’s Three Laws? Or will he give us one law that will correspond to any one of Kepler’s Three, and which will be as susceptible of absolute demonstration as are Kepler’s? Nay, verily. It is with this as with geology, simply and only, “perhaps,” “no doubt,” “probably,” and “must have been,” and these repeated over and over again, and then all of them capped with an “assumption.” Prof. Clifford says, “Of the beginning of the universe, we know nothing at all.” Prof. Huxley says, “The fact is, that at the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis [spontaneous generation] does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which the existence of life on this globe is recorded.” Yet he says that this “fact does not in the slightest degree interfere with the conclusion from other considerations, that at some time or other, abiogenesis must have taken place.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.1

    What kind of science is that wherein facts do not in the slightest degree interfere with a hypothesis? And why is it that they do not? Oh! because “if the hypothesis [supposition] of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen form not-living matter.” See Encyclopedia Britannica, Biology.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.2

    To be sure. And so the Creator, revelation, reason, and facts, even as acknowledged by themselves as facts, must all stand aside, so that a supposition may have free course to run and be glorified. With a little more of this kind of science I should, “doubtless,” be almost tempted, “perhaps,” to cry out for “about the space of two hours,” Great is the science of the evolutionists!ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.3

    Mr. Sully says, after speaking of the “gaps” in their knowledge, and the limits set to explanation, of evolution, “The question arises whether these apparently permanent gaps in our scientific knowledge can be filled up by extra-scientific speculations.” That is, these gaps are to be filled not only by “speculations,” but they are not even scientific, but “extra [above, outside of] scientific” speculations.—Enc. Brit., Evolution.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.4

    Now we come to Darwin himself, who Mr. Sully says is entitled to “the first notice as the one to whom belongs the honor of working out this theory of evolution upon a substantial basis of fact;” and of whose work Prof. Huxley says, “‘The Origin of Species’ appeared in 1859, and it is within the knowledge of all whose memories go back to that time, that henceforward the doctrine of evolution has assume a position and acquired an importance which it never before possessed.” And owing to the important place which he holds in this doctrine, I hope I may be pardoned for giving him quite an extended notice: but it will need to be in nothing but his own words; for, as will be seen, the words themselves are all-sufficient to show the “substantial,” “scientific,” or “extra” scientific basis of evolution. I quote from Darwin’s “Descent of Man,” Appleton’s Edition, 1871. The italics are mine.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.5

    Page 23. “No doubt he inherits the power [of smell] in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition from some early progenitor to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used. We can thus perhaps understand how it is, as Mr. Maudsley has truly remarked, that the sense of smell in man is singularly effective in recalling vividly the ideas and images of forgotten scenes and places.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.6

    Page 81. “It is probable that the early ape-like progenitors of man were likewise social. Although man, as he now exists, has few special instincts, having lost any which his early progenitors may have possessed, this is no reason why he should not have retained from an extremely remote period some degree of instinctive love and sympathy for his fellows.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.7

    Page 103. “In order that an ape-like creature should have been transformed into man, it is necessary that this early form, as well as many successive links, should all have varied in mind and body. It is impossible to obtain direct evidence on this head; but if it can be shown that man now varies, .... there can be little doubt that the preceding intermediate links varied in a like manner.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.8

    Page 144. “Nevertheless it may be well to own that no explanation, as far as I am aware, has ever been given of the loss of the tail by certain apes and man.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.9

    Page 150. “In regard to bodily size or strength, we do not know whether man is descended from some comparatively small species like the chimpanzee, or from one as powerful as the gorilla.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.10

    Page 151. “The early progenitors of man were no doubt inferior in intellect, and probably in social disposition, to the lowest existing savages.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 194.11

    Page 154. “It is therefore highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been gradually perfected through natural selection, and this conclusion is sufficient for our purpose. Undoubtedly it would have been very interesting to have traced the development of each separate faculty from the state in which it exists in the lower animals to that in which it exists in man; but neither my ability nor my knowledge permits the attempt.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.1

    Page 189. “If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group, then, as man agrees with them, ... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.2

    Page 191. “But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitor of the whole simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.3

    Page 192. “At the period and place, whenever and wherever it may have been, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country. We are far from knowing how long ago it was when man first diverged form the Catarrhine stock, but this may have occurred at an epoch as remote as the Eocene period.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.4

    Page 195. “In attempting to trace the genealogy of the mammalian, and therefore of man, lower in the series, we become involved in greater and greater obscurity.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.5

    Page 198. “The early progenitors of man were no doubt once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were pointed, and capable of movement, and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles.... At a still earlier period the progenitors must have been aquatic in their habits; for morphology plainly tells us that our lungs consist of a modified swim-bladder, which once served for a float. The clefts on the neck in the embryo of man show where the branchee once existed. These early predecessors of man... must have been as lowly organized as a lancelot or amphioxus, or still more lowly organized.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.6

    Page 205. “The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.7

    Yes, of course, to be born of an ape is vastly higher than to be fashioned by the perfect hand of the living God!!! And we are given to understand, by the President of the American Association, etc., that such a string of great swelling words as this is from beginning to end, is no more to be doubted as science than is the Copernican theory, which is demonstrated by the exact science of mathematics. It is scarcely to be wondered at that such a theory is atheistic. And no warning of the Bible is more pertinent to the present times than that one in 1 Timothy 6:20, 21: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so-called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.8

    Now I would not be understood as being, in the slightest degree, opposed to true science. On the contrary, I will yield to none in genuine admiration of science; but it must be real science, not sham science,—a science which, when it says “doubtless,” means doubtless in its absolute sense of having removed all doubt by sound reasoning and demonstrative evidence; and not as it is used by the “falsely so-called” science of our day, simply to give expression to a whole system of doubt. The truth is, that the most charming book, the Bible always excepted, of course, that I have ever had the pleasure of reading, is the most profoundly scientific book that I ever read. And that is “Maury’s Physical Geography of the Sea.” He does not deal much in those terms, but when he does say “doubtless,” it is doubtless. Simply as an illustration of what science is, I give the following from Lieutenant Maury’s treatise, sections 88-93:—ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.9

    In December, 1853, the fine new steamship sailed from New York bound for California with a regiment of United States troops on board. While crossing the Gulf Stream she was overtaken by a fearful gale, and by one single blow of a terrible sea, one hundred and seventy-nine persons, officers, and men were washed overboard and drowned, and the ship so crippled that she was simply adrift. The next day she was seen by a vessel, and again the next day by another; but neither of these could render any assistance, and so she was left still adrift. When these two ships reached the United States, they reported the matter; and vessels were sent out by the Government to search and relieve the drifting ship. But the questions were, Which way should they go? and where should they look? Appeal was made to Maury, and he, sitting in the National Observatory, prepared a chart of the Gulf Stream for that time of year, and from a point where the disabled ship was last seen, he drew two slightly diverging lines thus.... and said that the ship had drifted between these lines. Then one of the relief cutters, which was at New London, was told to go along a dotted line between these two lines thus.... to the last dot, and there she would see the object of her search. And right in sight of that very place the disabled ship was found. (For full particulars see the work referred to.)ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.10

    That was science in the fullest sense. When evolution can show such accuracy as that, it may lay claim to being a science; but it is entitled to no such claim as long as “facts can in no way interfere with the theory.” And yet Lieutenant Maury was so much a lover of God and the Bible that he saw God’s greatness manifested in every and all of the winds, currents, and creatures of the air and the ocean, and constantly found the beautiful truths of the Bible, most beautifully demonstrated, in the “wind in his circuits,” and by the rivers which “run into the sea,” as well as in the “sweet influences of Pleiades,” and held his reverence for the Bible at such a hight that in one instance at least, and which he has recorded, he actually gave up entirely a generally accepted theory, because, for one reason, as he himself says, “I found evidence in the Bible which seems to cast doubt upon it.” And so, like the true scientist that he was, he gave up the human theory, adopted the view that the Bible seemed to present, and soon demonstrated it as a scientific truth, although it was in direct opposition to one of the most eminent geologists of the day. That is the kind of science that I love; because, being based on the truth of God, it is part of the truth of God itself. And so, consequently, when men depart from the truth of God as recorded in nature, we can expect nothing else than, as I think is plainly shown by the evidence of this article, that they will depart form the truth of God as recorded in revelation.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.11

    “I charge thee, therefore, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom, PREACH THE WORD.” 2 Timothy 4:1, 2.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.12

    Farmington, W. T.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 195.13

    “‘How Is the Amendment to Be Carried out Practically!’” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 61, 13, pp. 202, 203.

    THIS question is asked by the Rev. J. C. K. Milligan, and the Christian Statesman of Feb. 21, 1884, and is answered by him as follows: “In brief, at its adoption will at once make the morality of the ten commandments to be the supreme law of the land, and anything in the State Constitutions and laws that is contrary to them will become unconstitutional. But the changes will come gradually, and probably only after the whole framework of Bible legislation has been thoroughly canvassed by Congress and State legislatures, by the Supreme Courts of the United States and of the several States, and by lawyers and citizens generally.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 202.1

    Then what will that be but to re-open the whole course of religious controversy from the Council of Nice to this day? And when the whole nation is thus plunged into religious controversy, who shall decide whether Congress or the State Legislature is correct? Who shall decide between lawyers and citizens generally, or between lawyers themselves, or citizens, or congressmen themselves?ARSH March 25, 1884, page 202.2

    Dr. M’Allister’s answer is, “The conflict of individual opinion will inevitably lead to anarchical conflict of legislative action, unless there is an acknowledged standard to which appeal can and must be made. The law of the Bible, by the proposed amendment, is made the supreme standard in deciding all moral questions in the administration of the government.” (See his Cleveland Convention speech, Statesman, Dec. 27, 1883.)ARSH March 25, 1884, page 203.1

    But it is not a sufficient answer to say that “the Bible is the standard and source of appeal;” because the Bible is just what all the controversy and “conflict of opinion” is about. And to say that there the Bible is to be the source of appeal, is only to say that the very subject of controversy is to be the standard by which to decide the controversy. It is plain, therefore, that there must be something to which appeal may be made, and which can interpret the Scriptures, and decide between the disputants, as to what the truth of the question is; and this decision must, in the very nature of the case, the final. It cannot be the courts, because they are parties to the controversy, and again, because there are certain principles of law which courts recognize in their decisions; such as this: “When words are put in a written law, there is an end to all construction. They must be followed.” (See Hon. Jno. A. Bingham, in “Impeachment of Johnson,” p. 23.) And this: “The words of a statute, if of common use, are to be taken in their natural, plain, obvious, and ordinary signification and import.”—Kent’s Commentaries, section 462. These principles will not be accepted by the Amendment party.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 203.2

    To illustrate: Suppose the Amendment is secured, and, therefore, Ten Commandments are the supreme law of this nation. I, to be loyal to my government, as well as loyal to my God, take the Bible, find the Ten Commandments, and begin to study diligently to learn what is my duty under this government. I am taught by these fundamental principles in the interpretation of law, that “when words are plain in a written law, there is an end to all construction; they must be followed.” And having this plain rule, from the Hon. John A. Bingham, for my guide, and believing that the Congress of the United States made no mistake when it chose Mr. Bingham as the Special Judge Advocate to conduct the trial of the assassins of President Lincoln, and again when it chose him to conduct its impeachment of President Johnson; therefore be leading him to be a safe guide in the interpretation of law, and having also the plain directions of Chancellor Kent, I proceed to the inquiry, as to what is required of me by the Ten Commandments. I come to the fourth commandment. I read, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work.” I applied my rule, thus: (1) This is a written law; (2) the words are plain,—“The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Now if I find what day is the seventh day, my duty is plain. I turn to that subject, and I find that all the sources of inquiry to which I reply, answer with one voice, “The day commonly called Saturday is the seventh day.” Having found the seventh day, and the words been “plain,” (3) “there is an end to all construction,” “they must be followed.” Now I apply Chancellor Kent’s rule, that by the testimony of two witnesses I may be right. First, are the words of the statute to such as are of “common use it”? I read the statute over carefully, and I find not a single word that is not of common use, and not one which I do not understand. Then I must take them “in their natural, plain, obvious, and ordinary signification and import.” Therefore, by these plain principles of the highest authority, I am compelled to admit that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and also to keep it as such.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 203.3

    Having now learned my duty in relation to the Sabbath, and having kept it, I proceed to learn and obey the rest of the commandment. I read just as plainly as the other, “Six days shalt thou labor.” When the Sabbath is passed, I go to work on the first day of the week, that I may work the six “working days.” But my neighbor sees me at work, and calls out to me, “Halloa! Why are you working on the Sabbath?” I reply, This day is not Sabbath, and therefore I am not working on the Sabbath. I kept Sabbath yesterday. He answers, “Oh! that was the Jewish Sabbath that you kept. This day is the Christian Sabbath; this now a Christian Government, and the Christian Sabbath must and shall be kept. “I refuse to yield to that argument, and here is a “conflict of the individual opinion.” He has me arrested, and brought to trial. Suppose I providentially obtain the services of Hon. Jno. A. Bingham to defend my cause, and he, by his consummate ability, convinces courts and juries that from the plainest reading of the statute I have to obey the supreme law of the land, and therefore innocent. And now suppose that just here the prosecution enters a plea that that is not the correct interpretation of the commandment; that, correctly interpreted, it means, not the definite seventh day, but “one day in seven.” Mr. Bingham insists that, by the fundamental rules of law, it must mean the seventh day. They reply, “Are we to apply the rules of civil law in the interpretation of a religious question? This is a religious subject, and it must be decided, and the commandment interpreted, in accordance with the Christian sentiment of this Christian government. We are the majority, and the majority must decide.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 203.4

    Now in such a case is this, is it not plain that the Bible will not be the source of appeal, but that it will be the Church as the interpreter of the Bible, which must render the final decision? Plainly, Yes. Is this an unjust illustration, or an unfair conclusion? Let us have their own words for answer. Please read again the question that the head of this article, and to the last word of that quotation connect the following and read it right onward; for it belongs there: “The churches and the pulpits have much to do with shaping and forming opinions on all moral questions, and with interpretations of Scripture on moral and civil ... points; and it is probable that in the almost universal gathering of our citizens about these the.... final decision of most points will be developed there.... There is certainly no class of citizens more intelligent, patriotic, and trustworthy than the leaders and teachers in our churches.” (?)ARSH March 25, 1884, page 203.5

    So, then, the church is to be the grand interpreter, and is to render the “final decisions” in this universal controversy. And again we are brought face to face with the image to the papal church. It was in this way that Rome placed herself as the one single interpreter of the Scriptures. Whenever a conflict of opinion occurred, it was brought immediately to the notice of the church, and she must decide as to what was the Scripture in the case, and which one of the disputants was in the right; consequently, no opinion could be held, and no duty practice, which he chose to declare unscriptural. Therefore, if the Scriptures were to be interpreted alone by her, and conduct was to be regulated alone by her decisions, it is manifest that the more the people read the Scriptures, the more we she annoyed by new controversies and by the necessity of rendering new decisions; and then why should she not prohibit the laity from reading the Scriptures? Besides, where was the use of the laity reading the Scriptures anyhow, when none but the clergy could interpret?ARSH March 25, 1884, page 203.6

    Will the national reformers prohibit our reading and interpreting the Scriptures? If not, why not? Would it not be vastly better to do so at once then [sic.] to be kept in a constant whirl of “interpretations,” and decisions? Then they could regulate the faith and practice of their so-called Christian government bulls issued, as occasion required, “in Domino salutem et apostalicam benedictionem.” This would save them a fast deal of labor, and doubtless would work just as well.ARSH March 25, 1884, page 203.7

    Seriously, now, from reading the Christian Statesman, and studying this movement, how is it possible for any one to doubt that the “image to the beast” is to be formed in this United States Government, and that it is that the very doors? And we fully agree with them that their movement does decidedly “contemplate sufficiently practical ends.”ARSH March 25, 1884, page 203.8

    ALONZO T. JONES.

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents