A question as to the opposition of scientists to divine revelation, based on the theory of evolution.
You need not apologize for writing, for the subject is of such importance, and I myself having passed through a conflict of doubt and an agony of soul on these very points, it makes me anxious to help any who are passing through the like.
I was assailed with fierce doubts during the course of my scientific studies, and at the very time that I was actively engaged preaching the gospel.
The young naturally look with reverence upon their college professors, but as one grows older one perceives that there is no class of men more self-confident than so-called scientists, and hence none more untrustworthy as guides on such matters.
The Christian, of course, takes his stand upon the Word of God. He has learned to trust that Word, not because of its scientific instruction, but because it has a power over heart and conscience that no other book has. The Bible was not intended to be a scientific handbook, nevertheless being inspired of God, it is and must be perfectly accurate wherever it may touch on such matters—and this, given time for a fuller acquaintance with the facts of science and a clearer understanding of the Scriptures, is invariably found to be the case.
I myself never had much difficulty on the subject of evolution, other things troubled my mind more. For, after all, evolution is but a theory; perhaps I should say only a hypothesis, invented by man to account for certain things that he finds in the world around.
It has often been said that the facts of science are one thing, the conclusions which scientific men have based on these facts are quite another.
The facts nobody can deny. “Scalpel and microscope,” to use your friend’s words, may elicit the facts of science. Man attempts to account for these facts by theories of his own invention, forgetting that after all he is only finite, and not only finite, but fallen; his intellectual powers are as much fallen as are his moral faculties.
But the Word of God accounts for these facts, too, yet in a very different way from man’s theory of evolution. Here there is an antagonism. Your scientists tell you that they are so convinced of the truth of their theory of evolution, that they are content to give up the Bible!
This is the crux of the whole matter. A man who thus argues proves two things; first, his own overweening confidence in himself, and secondly, that he has never felt the beauty and power of the Scriptures.
Man has a conscience which no scientific theories and researches can silence—he has deep soul needs which the “scalpel and microscope” will never satisfy.
Give up the Bible! The noblest intellects have pored over its pages with love and reverence and adoration of its divine Author.
But does it not contain scientific mistakes? Is not Genesis 1 and 2 full of them? So says the superficial devotee of science. But in fact no chapters bear more conclusive evidence of divine inspiration than these. Written at a time when science was unknown, they treat briefly and yet exhaustively the whole subject of the origin of the universe. During the ages of the past man has invented and been obliged to abandon theories. Scripture has spoken once, and has never had to alter, correct, or modify.
And none of the facts of science can be shown to militate against the account of creation there given.
Why does man seek to get rid of creation and to substitute evolution? Because if there is such a thing as creation, then there must be a Creator; that is, there must be a God, and man does not like to believe in God, for his conscience makes him feel that he is not fit for His presence.... If people would read and study their Bibles more they would find out moral beauties that would bow their souls in adoration.