Basic HTML Version
130
course, a very serious consequence of the theory, from which Pantheists have never been able
to escape.
3. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
The theory of evolution is sometimes spoken of as if it could be
a substitute for the doctrine of creation. But this is clearly a mistake. It certainly cannot be a
substitute for creation in the sense of absolute origination, since it presupposes something that
evolves, and this must in the last resort be either eternal or created, so that, after all, the
evolutionist must choose between the theory of the eternity of matter and the doctrine of
creation. At best, it might conceivably serve as a substitute for what is called secondary
creation, by which the substance already in existence is given a definite form. (a) Some
evolutionists, as, for instance, Haeckel, believe in the eternity of matter, and ascribe the origin
of life to spontaneous generation. But belief in the eternity of matter is not only decidedly un-
Christian and even atheistic; it is also generally discredited. The idea that matter, with force as
its universal and inseparable property, is quite sufficient for the explanation of the world, finds
little favor to-day in scientific circles. It is felt that a material universe, composed of finite parts
(atoms, electrons, and so on) cannot itself be infinite; and that that which is subject to constant
change cannot be eternal. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear that blind matter and
force or energy cannot account for life and personality, for intelligence and free will. And the
idea of spontaneous generation is a pure hypothesis, not only unverified, but practically
exploded. The general law of nature seems to be “omne vivum e vivo” or “ex vivo.” (b) Other
evolutionists advocate what they call theistic evolution. This postulates the existence of God
back of the universe, who works in it, as a rule according to the unalterable laws of nature and
by physical forces only, but in some cases by direct miraculous intervention, as, for instance, in
the case of the absolute beginning, the beginning of life, and the beginning of rational and
moral existence. This has often been called derisively a “stop-gap” theory. It is really a child of
embarrassment, which calls God in at periodic intervals to help nature over the chasms that
yawn at her feet. It is neither the Biblical doctrine of creation, nor a consistent theory of
evolution, for evolution is defined as “a series of gradual progressive changes effected by
means of resident forces” (Le Conte). In fact, theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms. It is
just as destructive of faith in the Biblical doctrine of creation as naturalistic evolution is; and by
calling in the creative activity of God time and again it also nullifies the evolutionary hypothesis.
Besides these two views we may also mention Bergson’s Creative evolution, and C. Lloyd
Morgan’s Emergent evolution. The former is a vitalistic pantheist, whose theory involves the
denial of the personality of God; and the latter in the end comes to the conclusion that he
cannot explain his so-called emergents without positing some ultimate factor which might be
called “God.”