204 Man the Child of God 



conclusion has always been perfect. The question of 

 the Descent of Man is in a realm somewhat beyond 

 exact science, and philosophical criticism should be 

 welcome, especially in its scrutiny of the terms in 

 which the scientific verdict is stated. 



Put somewhat bluntly, the question is whether the 

 scientific descriptive statement that Man is the out- 

 come of a process of evolution is incongruent with the 

 religious interpretation that Man is the child of God. 

 Without yielding anything on either side, can we see 

 the interpretation to be supplementary to the de- 

 scription ? 



When we say that Man is an outcome of evolution, 

 we mean that he is the highest expression of a process 

 that began with simple forms of life and has con- 

 tinued for many millions of years, a process in which 

 novelties are continually emerging and being sifted. 

 There is no reason to suppose that it was "a chapter 

 of accidents," as someone has said. There is no reason 

 to suppose that mind evolved out of what was devoid 

 of the primordia — the raw materials, so to speak, of 

 mind. There is no reason to believe that the mind of 

 the living creature was not operative throughout, 

 through all the spires of form, testing all things and 

 holding fast that which is good or fit — for that is the 

 evolutionary process. The firmer our grasp of the 

 idea of continuity, the more we must allow to the 

 original endowment of the simplest organisms. Not 

 that evolution has been an unpacking of a well- 

 packed portmanteau, any more than the finest work 

 of a great artist is just the development of his early 



