Christ or Evolution - Which?
The Issue Stated
Let it be clearly understood and kept in mind that this is not fighting science. William E. Gladstone and Sir Robert Anderson of England, Lord Kelvin and Dr. Virchow and many great scientists of Europe who opposed and exposed Evolution cannot be written down as fighting science. Philip Mauro, the New York lawyer, and Alfred W. McCann, LL. D., the New York lawyer, and Professor Geo. McCready Price, the California scientist, and Wm. Jennings Bryan and Prof. L. T. Townsend of Boston University, and R. A. Torrey and W. B. Riley and a host of others who are opposing and exposing Evolution, cannot be written down as enemies of science; and it is babyish, it is sissy, it is unworthy of men who claim to be educated men, to thus try to becloud the issue and hide behind such a miserable dodge. It will be shown in Chapter IV that Evolution is not science; and it will be shown in Chapter V that the great body of the really great scientists utterly repudiated it.
Further, it is not the issue of having religion taught in the public schools. As a matter of fact, religion ought to be taught throughout the child's entire public school period. Man has three natures -- the body, the mind, the soul. The State School can educate the body, the mind, but cannot educate the soul. The denominational school educates the whole man -- body, mind, soul. What is the result? The denominational schools, with their generally poorer equipment, have put nearly nine times as many men in the book "Who's Who in America" as the State Schools with their magnificent equipments -- one-third of the man they do not and cannot educate. There ought to be, there could be, some plan devised by which one period each day should be given to religious education; not by the State, but by representatives of each religious denomination, coming and teaching in the school rooms, or in the nearby buildings. But this fight is not to unite Church and State; it is not to have religion taught in public schools. It is that the public schools, from primary through University, shall not be used to fight the Bible, to fight religion, to kill out the Bible and religion in the lives of the pupils. If the State is not to teach religion it is certainly not to tear down religion. It is just as much a violation of the Constitution to tear down religion as it is to teach religion. The Constitution of our country guarantees freedom of religion and separation of Church and State -- will any one dare claim that the State has the right, through the teachers and the professors in the State schools, to undermine religion, to teach so as to destroy faith in the Bible and in the Saviour; to teach the most deadly, Christ-denying, soul-destroying infidelity that the world has known since Adam; simply because a lot of half-baked scientists have taken up the cast-off, camouflaging garment of German infidelity and rationalism and are masquerading in it under the guise of science, when there is no science in it? This will be clearly shown in Chapter IV. In Chapters VI and VII its effects on teachers and pupils will be shown.
No living man is better fitted to state this tremendous issue than Hon. William Jennings Bryan. (Far, far be the day when the telegraph wires shall flash the message to the ends of the earth that the world's first citizen, the Statesman, the Philanthropist, the Christian, William Jennings Bryan, is no more among us!) He knows America as no other man; he knows this question from the scientific standpoint, from the legal standpoint, from the religious standpoint. Hear him:
"Now that the legislatures of the various states are in session, I beg to call attention of the legislators to a much needed reform, viz., the elimination of the teaching of atheism and agnosticism from schools, colleges and universities supported by taxation. Under the pretense of teaching science, instructors who draw their salaries from the public treasury are undermining the religious faith of students by substituting belief in Darwinism for belief in the Bible. Our Constitution very properly prohibits the teaching of religion at public expense. The Christian church is divided into many sects, Protestant and Catholic, and it is contrary to the spirit of our institutions, as well as to the written law, to use money raised by taxation for the propagation of sects. In many states they have gone so far as to eliminate the reading of the Bible, although its morals and literature have a value entirely distinct from the religious interpretations variously placed upon the Bible.
"Quietly and unnoticed, the enemies of the Bible have been substituting irreligion for religion. Having excluded the teaching of religion, they are daily teaching that which cannot be true if the Bible is true. They do not always openly attack the Bible, but that which they teach is built upon the theory that the Bible is untrue. Many of these teachers are atheists, and do not believe in either a personal God or a personal immorality, as Professor Leuba, of Bryn Mawr, shows in his book, 'Belief in God and Immortality.' Professor Leuba has himself rejected belief in a personal God and belief in a personal immortality, and presents evidence to show that a majority of the prominent scientists agree with him.
"Some deny that they are atheists, preferring rather to call themselves agnostics, it being easier to plead ignorance than to defend atheism. Darwin declared himself to be an agnostic, having substituted his hypothesis and its implications for the Bible. Darwin began life a Christian, but finding that his hypothesis was inconsistent with the fundamental teachings of Christianity, he rejected the Bible as an inspired Book, and with it the Christ of whom the Bible tells. Darwin declared himself an agnostic, and said that the beginning of all things was a mystery insoluble by man.
"The tendency of Darwinianism, although unsupported by any substantial fact in nature, since no species has been shown to come from any other species, is to destroy faith in a personal God, faith in the Bible as an inspired Book, and faith in Christ as Son and Saviour.
"The so-called theistic evolutionists refuse to admit that they are atheists, contending that they believe in a God back of creation; they argue that evolution is God's method, but they put God so far away as to practically destroy a sense of God's presence in the daily life and a sense of responsibility to Him. At least, that is the tendency, and since the so-called theistic evolutionists borrow all their facts from atheistic evolutionists and differ from them only in the origin of life, theistic evolution may be described as an anaesthetic administered to young Christians to deaden the pain while their religion is being removed by the materialists.
"When the Christians of the nation understand the demoralizing influence of this godless doctrine, they will refuse to allow it to be taught at public expense. Christianity is not afraid of truth, because truth comes from God, no matter by whom it is discovered or proclaimed, but there is no reason why Christians should tax themselves to pay teachers to exploit guesses and hypotheses as if they were true.
"The only thing that Christians need to do now is to bring the enemies of the Bible into the open and compel them to meet the issue as it is. As soon as the methods of the atheists, agnostics, and Darwinists are exposed, they raise a cry that freedom of conscience is being attacked. That is false, there is no interference with freedom of conscience in this country, and should be none. Christians will be just as prompt as atheists to oppose any attempt to interfere with absolute freedom of conscience. The atheist has just as much civil right to deny God as the Christian has to believe God; the agnostic has just as much right to profess ignorance in regard to God's existence as the Christian has to profess his faith in the existence of God. The right of conscience is not menaced in this country, it is inviolable.
"Neither do Christians object to the teaching of atheism and agnosticism by those who believe in these doctrines. Atheists have just as much civil right to teach atheism as Christians have to teach Christianity; agnostics have just as much right to teach agnosticism as Christians have to teach their religion. Let it be understood that there is no attack either upon the freedom of conscience or upon any one's right to teach religion or irreligion. The real issue is whether atheists, agnostics, Darwinists and evolutionists shall enjoy special privileges in this country, and have rights higher than the rights of Christians. They dare not claim higher rights, though they now enjoy higher rights and are contending for higher rights.
"When Christians want to teach Christianity, they build their own schools and colleges, and employ their own teachers -- Catholics build Catholic schools, Protestants build Protestant schools. Every Protestant branch of the Christian church builds its own schools for the propagation of its own doctrine. This is the rule, and there is no protest against it.
"Why should not atheists build their own colleges and employ their own teachers if they want to teach atheism? Why should not agnostics build their own colleges and employ their own teachers if they want to teach agnosticism? Only a small percentage of the American people believe that man is descendant of the ape, monkey, or of any other form of animal life below man; why should not those who worship brute ancestors build their own colleges, and employ their own teachers for the training of their own children for their brute doctrine? There are no atheistic schools, and there are no agnostic schools -- why should there be, if atheists and agnostics can save the expense of building their own schools and the expense of employing their own teachers by using the public schools for the propagation of their doctrine? They even make their living by teaching to the children of Christians a doctrine that the parents reject and which they do not want their children to accept. As long as the atheists and agnostics have the same rights as the Christians, what complaint can they make of injustice? Why do they ask special favors?
"If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense? It is safe to say that not one professing Christian in ten has any sympathy with Darwinism or with any evolutionary hypothesis that takes from man the breath of the Almighty and substitutes the blood of a brute. Why should a small fraction of the Christian church -- if they call themselves Christians -- insist upon propagating their views of Christianity and their interpretation of the Bible at public expense? If any portion of the people could claim the right to teach their views at public expense, that right would certainly belong to a large majority rather than to a small minority. But the majority are not asking that their views be taught at the expense of the taxpayers; the majority is simply protesting against the use of the public schools of a MINORITY to spread their view, whether they be called atheists, or agnostics, or are merely teaching their interpretation of the Bible.
"Christians do not ask that the teachers in the public schools, colleges and universities become exponents of orthodox Christianity; they are not asking them to teach the Bible conception of God, to affirm the Bible's claim to infallibility, or to proclaim the deity of Christ; but Christians have a right to protest against teaching that which weakens faith in God, undermines belief in the Bible, and reduces Christ to the stature of a man. The teacher who tells the student that miracles are impossible because contrary to evolution, is attacking the Bible; what right has he to do so?
"Our schools are intended to train the minds of students, but back of the mind is the heart, out of which 'are the issues of life'. Religion deals with the Science of How to Live, which is more important than any science taught in the schools. The school teacher cannot cram enough education into the mind to offset the harm done to the student if his life is robbed of faith and his ideals are brought down to the basis of materialism. It is high time for the people who believe in religion to make their protest against the teaching of irreligion in the public schools under the guise of science and philosophy.
"Aresolution without penalties will be sufficient -- a resolution passed by the legislature declaring it unlawful for any teacher, principal, superintendent, trustee, director, member of a school board, or any other person exercising authority in or over a public school, college or university, whether holding office by election or appointment, to teach or permit to be taught in any institution of learning, supported by public taxation, atheism, agnosticism, Darwinism, or any other hypothesis that links man in blood relationship to any other form of life.
"We are not dealing with criminals, for whom fine or imprisonment is necessary, but with educated people who have substituted a scientific guess for the Bible, and who are, in the opinion of orthodox Christians, attempting to use public schools for the propagation of doctrines antagonistic to the Bible or to the interpretation of the Bible commonly accepted by professing Christians throughout the United States and the world. Fines and penalties are not only unnecessary, but would, if included in legislative measures, turn attention from the real issue which is the protection of the rights of all in matters of conscience and religious belief. "The right of the taxpayers to decide what shall be taught can hardly be disputed. Someone must decide. The hand that writes the paycheck rules the school; if not, to whom shall the right to decide such important matters be entrusted?"
The issue is plain: The Evolutionists intend, through our tax-supported schools, to change our Bible and our religion. A prominent Evolutionist has put it plainly: "We intend, first, to reconstruct Bible history in harmony with the theory of Evolution. Second, to eliminate by this process all that is supernatural in the record." Eliminate all that is supernatural, and you have no real Redeemer left, and hell will be the home of every responsible human being. There is the issue and we need to face it. As Mr. Guizot well put it, "All those who are still Christians and believers in a supernatural life, must become united against the mission of materialistic doctrines!" And, as quoted by Pater Mundi, one of the most eminent of modern scientists said, "The evangelistic churches cannot, in consistency with their character, or with due regard to the interests of their people, slight or overlook a form of error at once exceedingly plausible and consummately dangerous and which is telling so widely on sanity that one can scarcely travel by railway or in a steamboat, or encounter a group of intelligent mechanics, without finding decided trace of its ravages."
The great Scientist, Prof. George Frederick Wright, says, "It is the fad of the present, which is making such havoc and confusion in the thought of the age, leading so many into intellectual positions, whose conclusions they dare not face and cannot flank." Exactly! But we MUST face them, or our children are doomed. And so Prof. Geo. Howison gives the warning: "It is a portent so threatening to the highest concerns of man that we ought to look before we leap and look more than once."
"The religious public looks on with indifference while their children are being taught this doctrine, not knowing that it is a theory that undermines the Bible and all revealed religion." Alfred Fairhurst, scientist A. M. D. Sc. Theistic Evolution p. 82.
But they are raising the cry, "Science should be left to take care of itself." They said that about the liquor business: "Let liquor alone and it will let you alone." And we did until hundreds of thousands of drunkards' graves and hundreds of thousands of broken-hearted drunkards' wives, and hundreds of thousands of ragged, beggared drunkards' children, and hundreds of thousands of drunkards' souls in hell showed us that it was wrong reasoning -- it did not let us alone. And they have said this about Evolution: "Let the scientists attend to their business and the preachers to theirs," and, brow-beaten by this, we have gone along until hundreds of thousands have had their faith in the Bible wrecked and their souls sent to hell, as will be shown in Chapter VII.
As President Francis L. Patton puts it, "You may put your philosophy in one pocket and your religion in another and think that, as they are separate, they will not interfere, but that will not work. You have to bring your theory of the universe and your theory of religion together."
And Alexander Patterson, the great author, well says, "To the ordinary man the matter appears in this light: If we cannot believe a man's statements we will not take his advice. If we cannot believe the Bible's narratives, why should we believe its religion? If it is not trustworthy as to the facts of this world, why depend upon it as to the other world? If it cannot teach correctly the nature of insects and animals, why should it be able to tell us the nature of God?"
Let an Evolutionist state the case. A Theistic Evolutionist, the kind some of your Christian editors and college presidents pussy-foot about, apologize for, and defend; an honest candid one -- not the Janus-faced kind that talk Evolution in a pompous know-it-all manner before college professors and students, and then go before the common people and tell tender stories of trusting the Saviour to redeem them by His blood, and whine about "the blood of Jesus" and that "Christ died for our sins" -- to keep the common people hood-winked, and continue to hold their jobs! None of your Theistic Evolutionists will dare come out in the open and give a theory of Theistic Evolution that is any better than this man's statement -- he is simply honest and candid. I quote from Marion D. Shutter's "Applied Evolution" as given in that book that no man will ever dare to try to answer, "Evolution -- a Menace," by J. W. Porter: "Granted the greatness and goodness of Jesus, how do you account for him? What is the relation to Him of 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. Jesus is as much the product of the laws and forces in nature and in society as Shakespeare or Napoleon. The speaking serpent, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the tree of life, the idea that eating certain kinds of fruit would give wisdom or immortality -- these are clearly legendary or mythical elements. As pictures or symbols, they may be even beautiful; but as history they are quite as far beyond the pale of fact as the fountain of youth or the dreams of alchemy. For these reasons we cannot accept the story of Eden and the Fall as history. There is no more testimony in its favor when it appears in Jewish or Christian writings -- when it appears in Genesis and in the quotation from Genesis by Paul -- than when we find it in Persian or Buddhist Scriptures. It is not the book in which we find a statement that gives it credibility; it is the character of the statement itself. .... And let us remember if this account of Eden and the Fall is not history, the current creeds of Christendom, not yet disavowed or revised; the theology still assumed, even where it is not directly preached -- these have no footing in fact, they are but such stuff as dreams are made of, they but cumber the intellectual ground of the Church and the world, and should no longer be allowed to impose upon the human understanding. ....
"Let us now pass on the evidence that man has risen and not fallen; that he did not begin perfect and deteriorate; but that he began low and imperfect, and has been slowly but surely gaining in character and in moral power.
" (1) First of all we have the testimony of Science. If anything is made clear by modern research and investigation it is that man was not created full-grown in body and mind, with established character; but that he came up through the animal and started on his human career with simply a few instincts inherited from the orders below and behind him. .... These are proofs which must stand unshaken against any legend from the dim, uncertain speculation of the world's childhood, about a creation in a moment, complete and perfect from the dust of the earth and the breath of God.
"(2) And when men came up from the animals -- so far were they from being holy and righteous in character, that it took them ages upon ages to learn the difference between right and wrong, and they learned it not by direct revelation from on high, but through the experiences of their savage life, as these played upon the instinct of self-preservation and the instinct to combine with others. They learned the difference between right and wrong through animal pains and pleasures. They learned to avoid the things that hurt and do the things which brought satisfaction. They learned to live in families: they learned to live in tribes..... Through these processes did man first come to morality. ....
"(3) The race began unenlightened, unmoral, and therefore without moral responsibility. Little by little it came on toward enlightenment, toward the appreciation of the distinction between right and wrong, and therefore toward responsibility. .... And for his Knowledge of God and communion with Him -- the first men knew no God, but simply feared invisible beings in the natural objects about them. The idea of One Supreme, Wise, and Good Being, was the achievement of uncalendared ages. .... This is the account that Science gives us today; and we place it over against the account preserved in Genesis, which the scholarship of even orthodoxy itself is resolving into the 'baseless fabric of a vision'.....
(4) The earth has never been cursed; human life has never been blighted; we have never been shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin. We are under no condemnation for the sins of an ancestor who never ate the forbidden fruit. If the story of the Fall is not historic, then there is no Great Tempter, the Devil, abroad in the Universe. If there has been no fall and no devil and no wrath of God, there is no endless hell-flaming and devouring in the future; no lake of fire and brimstone that awaits us when we die. If there has been no break in the divine order, then there is no need of atonement to restore it -- a bloody sacrifice to appease the wrath of an offended God, an innocent victim to take the place of guilty men. ....
"(5) There is a place for Christ; but not as the incarnate God, not as the bloody sacrifice, not as the substitute for sinners; but as the human leader and example; as the one who illustrates the victory of the spiritual over the animal; as the one who is able to teach others the secret of triumph. Is there no difference between these conceptions ? . . . .
"If the genealogies given of Him in Matthew and Luke be at all correct, what blood of saints and prophets and heroes ran in His veins! The faith of Abraham, the imagination and emotion of David, the wisdom of Solomon, may have reappeared in Him -- together with the gentleness and purity of Mary, his mother, and the strength and integrity of Joseph, His father. .... He is the child of his own immediate family, the child of His nation, the child of all the ages that went before him! "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."
There you have Theistic Evolution stated plainly by one of its greatest advocates. Some men, to sidestep the issue, say, "I do not believe in Darwinian Evolution; I believe in Theistic Evolution." Well, there you have it. A man by the name of "Buzzard" moved from the South to a northern city and changed him name to "Bu-zard." Some years after a farmer acquaintance went to the northern city, and was introduced by a mutual friend to "Mr. Bu-zard," who said, "Mr. Smith, meet my friend Mr. Bu-zard." The southerner replied, "Buzard, nothing! I know him! He's the same old Buzzard!" Go back and read that quotation again from this great Theistic Evolutionist, and you will see that Theistic Evolution is the same old buz-zard -- it is feeding on the wrecked faith and doomed souls of our boys and girls in our High Schools.
Atheistic Evolution teaches that everything did not bring forth "after his kind." "Theistic Evolution" teaches that everything did not bring forth "after his kind." In both cases it means that there are ten lies in the first chapter of Genesis; that the Saviour endorsed those ten lies as the Word of God; that He is therefore not real Deity and therefore not a real Redeemer; that therefore we are left without a Redeemer, and hell only is left. Theistic Evolution will damn a student as certainly as Atheistic Evolution.
It is true that they are teaching it now in the primary departments of our public schools, as I will show in Chapter III, as well as in our State Normals and State Universities, but the center of the curse is in our High Schools at the most dangerous, susceptible age of the students.
We are being deceived by being led to think that "Theistic Evolution" means "Christian Evolution." There is, there can be, no Christian Evolution. There is, there can be, no place in Theistic Evolution for the Saviour, except as the bastard, illegitimate son of a fallen woman. Evolution means a continuous process; a break in the process and Evolution must be given up. Go back and read again Shutter's statement. That is what we are paying for, with our taxes, to have taught to our children in the State Universities, in the State Normals, in the High Schools, and down to the primary departments of the public schools. It is in your power to stop it through your local boards of trustees and through your legislators. Will you crouch and cower before the sneers and sarcasm of a lot of high-brows, or will you assert your Christian manhood and womanhood?
Remember that Theistic Evolution is a universal, continuous process, or it is nothing. The Bible says, "and the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God," -- Luke 1:35. Theistic Evolution says "That's a lie! that miracle did not occur; Jesus had a human father as well as mother." The Saviour said, "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will but the will of Him that sent me," -- John 6:38. Theistic Evolution says, "That's a lie! He never had pre-existence but had both a human mother and father." The Saviour, after His resurrection, said to the disciples, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day," -- Luke 24:46. Theistic Evolution says, "That's a lie. 'Evolution means a universal continuous process; Jesus was not really raised from the dead." The Bible says, "And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, 'Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven," -- Acts 2:10,11. Theistic Evolution says, "That's a lie! There was no resurrection and ascension of the Saviour into heaven; for Evolution teaches a continuous, unbroken process."
The Saviour said, "Tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised." -- Luke 7:22. Theistic Evolution says, "That's a lie; Evolution calls for a universal, unbroken, continuous process; therefore miracles do not occur."
Dr. Howard Kelly, the noted physician and scientist of Johns Hopkins, replying to an Evolutionist: "And you, dear doctor, when you tear the first pages out of our Bible and declare them unscientific, where do you propose to end? And can you assure me that your hearers at Crozer will halt where you choose to stop? Do you not believe that such an unguarded wholesale declaration of belief in Evolution will inevitably also remove from your Bible the miracles, the virgin birth, Christ's atoning sacrificial death, his mighty victory over death in the resurrection of His body, and His ascension to the right hand of God to be our Mediator, and to prepare a place for us, and His coming again?"
The Editor of the great widely read Texas paper, The Baptist Standard, states the issue clearly: "Here is the alarming fact: The conclusions and implications of Evolution are such that thorough-going, consistent Evolutionists cannot accept the scriptural teachings of the virgin birth, the Deity of Christ and a substitutionary atonement, the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the imminent, personal return of our Lord."
"The man who accepts it, even as a working hypothesis in teaching, will find that he has a hopeless case when he tries to adjust its claims to the teaching of Christ. He will find, also that the authors who have written the texts on the basis of Evolution repudiate all miracles." -- Alfred Fairhurst, Scientist, A. M. D. Sci., Theistic Evolution, p 149.
This is Evolution; this is what is being taught in our State Universities,
our State Normals, our High Schools and down to the primary departments
in our public schools, and is being paid for by our taxes. Shall we stand
by and see our children robbed of the Bible as God's revelation to us,
robbed of a real Redeemer, and their souls sent to hell ? It is in the
hands of the Christian people of this land, through their local boards
of trustees, to drive every Evolutionist teacher fromthe High Schools and
other public schools and through their legislatures to cut off all appropriations
in all schools where Evolution is taught. Oh, they'll cry "Persecution!"
"They burned Servetus at the stake." Well, Chapters VI and VII will show
what it is doing for both teachers and students. Shall I pay a doctor to
come into my home and bring health to my children, and when I see he is
poisoning them, let him continue to poison them and continue to pay him,
because I am so little of soul that I am afraid of his arousing popular
sympathy by crying "persecution"? His poisoning my children's bodies is
nothing compared with the teachers robbing my children of a real Saviour
with their Evolution and sending their souls to hell.