inform us. As the command ?Let the earth bring forth living creatures? ( <010124>Genesis 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation through natural generation. So the forming of man ?of the dust of the ground?

( <010207>Genesis 2:7), does not in itself determine whether the creation of man?s body was mediate or immediate.

We may believe that man sustained to the highest preceding brute the same relation which the multiplied bread and fish sustained to the five loaves and two fishes ( <401419>Matthew 14:19), or which the wine sustained to the water which was transformed at Cana ( <430207>John 2:7-10), or which the multiplied oil sustained to the original oil in the Old Testament miracle ( <120401>2 Kings 4:1-7). The ?dust,? before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust. Natural means may have been used, so far as they would go. Sterrett Reason and Authority in Religion, 39 ? ?Our heredity is from God, even though it be from lower forms of life, and our goal is also God, even though it be through imperfect manhood.?

Evolution does not make the idea of a Creator superfluous, because evolution is only the method of God. It is perfectly consistent with a Scriptural doctrine of Creation. Man should emerge at the proper time, governed by different laws from the brute creation yet growing out of the brute, just as the foundation of a house built of stone is perfectly consistent with the wooden structure built upon it. All depends upon the plan. An atheistic and undesigning evolution cannot include man without excluding what Christianity regards as essential to man; see Griffith- Jones, Ascent through Christ, 43-73. But a theistic evolution can recognize the whole process of man?s creation a equally the work of nature and the work of God.

Schurman, Agnosticism and Religion, 42 ? ?You are not what you have come from, but what you have become.? Huxley said of the brutes: ?Whether from them or not, man is assuredly not of them.? Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:289 ? ?The religious dignity of man rests after all upon what he is, not upon the mode and manner in which he has become what he is.? Because he came from a beast, it does not follow that he is a beast. Nor does the fact that man?s existence can be traced back to a brute ancestry furnish any proper reason why the brute should become man. Here is a teleology, which requires a divine Creator-ship.

J. M. Bronson: ?The theist must accept evolution if he would keep his argument for the existence of God from the unity of design in nature. Unless man is an end, he is an anomaly. The greatest argument for God is the fact that all animate nature is one vast and connected unity. Man has

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment