Basic HTML Version
150
presupposes the prior existence of an entity or principle or force, out of which something
develops. The non-existent cannot develop into existence. Matter and force could not have
evolved out of nothing. It has been customary for evolutionists to fall back on the nebular
hypothesis, in order to explain the origin of the solar system, though in present day science this
is supplanted by the planetesimal hypothesis. But these only carry the problem one step farther
back, and fail to solve it. The evolutionist must either resort to the theory that matter is eternal,
or accept the doctrine of creation.
b. The theory of naturalistic evolution is not in harmony with the narrative of creation.
If
evolution does not account for the origin of the world, does it not at least give a rational
account of the development of things out of primordial matter, and thus explain the origin of
the present species of plants and animals (including man), and also the various phenomena of
life, such as sentiency, intelligence, morality, and religion? Does it necessarily conflict with the
narrative of creation? Now it is perfectly evident that naturalistic evolution certainly does
conflict with the Biblical account. The Bible teaches that plants and animals and man appeared
on the scene at the creative fiat of the Almighty; but according to the evolutionary hypothesis
they evolved out of the inorganic world by a process of natural development. The Bible
represents God as creating plants and animals after their kind, and yielding seed after their
kind, that is, so that they would reproduce their own kind; but the theory of evolution points to
natural forces, resident in nature, leading to the development of one species out of another.
According to the narrative of creation, the vegetable and animal kingdoms and man were
brought forth in a single week; but the hypothesis of evolution regards them as the product of a
gradual development in the course of millions of years. Scripture pictures man as standing on
the highest plane at the beginning of his career, and then descending to lower levels by the
deteriorating influence of sin; the theory of evolution, on the other hand, represents original
man as only slightly different from the brute, and claims that the human race has risen, through
its own inherent powers, to ever higher levels of existence.
c. The theory of naturalistic evolution is not well established and fails to account for the facts.
The conflict referred to in the preceding would be a serious matter, if the theory of evolution
were an established fact. Some think it is and confidently speak of the dogma of evolution.
Others, however, correctly remind us of the fact that evolution is still only a hypothesis. Even so
great a scientist as Ambrose Fleming says that “the close analysis of the ideas connected with
the term Evolution shows them to be insufficient as a philosophic or scientific solution of the
problems of reality and existence.”[Evolution or Creation, p. 29.] The very uncertainty which
prevails in the camp of the evolutionists is proof positive that evolution is only a hypothesis.
Moreover, it is frankly admitted to-day by many who still cling to the principle of evolution that
they do not understand its method of operation. It was thought at one time that Darwin had