February, 1931 



EVOLUTION 



Page nineteen 



Funnymentals 



"The man who teaches evolution is a plain 

 perjurer, no matter whether he occu'iJies a 

 chair in the university or is just an ordinary 

 intellectual tramp/' Rev. Dr. Mark A. 

 Mathews, First Presbyterian Church, Seattle, 

 quoted by Seattle Times. 



"We believe that the Genesis record ot a 

 literal creation in six twenty-four-hour days is 

 an inspired record of a historical fact. We 

 deplore the present tendency to interpret the 

 past history of the earth m terms of long 

 geological ages, for we mamtain that the 

 theory of evolution rests on unproved hypo- 

 thesis, whereas the facts of science support not 

 only the great fundamental doctrine of crea- 

 tionism but also the idea of the destruction 

 of the world by the flood as portrayed in the 

 Bible. 



"We atHrm that the variations occurring in 

 plants and animals do not indicate evolution- 

 ary progress, but are clearly interpreted in the 

 light of conditions prevailing since the flood, 

 and we utterly repudiate the implication that 

 man originated from any lower form of life." 

 Resolution adopted by World Conference of 

 Seventh Day Adventists (299,555 members) 

 San Francisco, July, 1930. 



"The time has come when bishops who be- 

 lieve the tommyrot of evolution and allow it 

 to spread under their jurisdiction ought to be 

 compelled to resign their office. Missionaries 

 who teach it ought to be called home. 

 Preachers who preach it ought to be nade to 

 vacate their pulpits. Professors who teach 

 it in our Christian schools and colleges ought 

 to be driven from the institutions. While 

 editors who proclaim it through their papers 

 ought to be silenced and their pens dried 

 up, * * =^ 



"There will never be another genuine re- 

 vival of religion in this world until the Chris- 

 tian church repudiates the most subtle and 

 monstrous lie that the devil has ever thrown in 

 the face oh the Son of God, and until it drives 

 the whole diabolic spawn of evolution .nto the 

 nethermost depths of hell where it belongs, 

 when finally the Angel of the Apocalypse puts 

 the lid upon the pit and bottles up the whole 

 pestiferous tribe, there to await the final 

 judgment of an insulted God." From "The 

 Devil Unmasked," pamphlet published by San 

 Antonio Bible Institute. 



"Some may say, why not ignore evolution 

 and let it die of neglect? This scheme might 

 apply to a fierce dog, but evolution is far 

 from a fierce dog character. It is more like a 

 itealthy hyena in its habits." C. H. Buchanan, 

 D.D., in Jan. 1930 Bible Champion. 



4^ "If we make a reasonable allowance for the 



work of the Deluge, or the Flood, we shall 

 not have enough fossils left over, unexplained 

 and unaccounted for, to make much of n 

 showing toward a long age previously." George 

 McCready Price in July, 1929, Bible Cham- 

 pion. 



Evolution does not deal with bibli- 

 cal interpretation. However, to give 

 our readers an idea of questions agitat- 

 ing the fundamentalist world we reprint 

 this from the December 1950 "Chris- 

 t lan Fu n damentalist.' ' 



Three Views of Creation 



By DUDLEY JOSEPH WHITNEY 



There are among Bible believers three dis- 

 tinct views regarding the events of creation 

 week. The first view is that taken by Doctor 

 Riley; that the earth is ages old and that 

 these ages correspond with the outline of crea- 

 tion as given in Genesis I so excellently that 

 one is compelled to believe that these ages 

 were the "days" of creation. 



The second view was that taken by Mr. 

 Rimmer: that the ages may have occurred and 

 doubtless did occur, but that the earth under- 

 went a complete rum, then a reconstruction in 

 literal days. An Italian scholar, G. Bartoli, 

 has essentially the same view, only believes the 

 earth before its ruin was a product of direct 

 instant creation, rather than a development of 

 long ages. 



There is, however, a view distinct from 

 both of these which has at the present rive 

 what seems stronger backing in scienre than 

 either of the other theories, namely, that 

 the stratified ro;ks and the fossils therein are 

 the result of the Deluge and were not de- 

 posited during geological ages, or in a pre- 

 Adamic ruin. This is the view so ably de- 

 veloped by George McCready Price, and ac- 

 cepted by many others who have made a care- 

 ful study of the subject. 



In the very nature of the case the davs of 

 creation according to this theory would not 

 be geological ages, for no sign of such ages 

 would be found in the rocks and, as a natural 

 consequence, literal day creation would be 

 believed. 



The correct method of solving the problem 

 would seem to be to see how well each of the 

 thrci^ views of earth history harmonized with 

 the Bible; then to see, too, how well they har- 

 monized with true science — and true science 

 does not mean the fanciful views commonly 

 put forth by many men of standing as 

 science. 



Forty years ago and even less, striking har 

 mony seemed to appear between historical 

 geology as accepted by scholars and the first 

 chapter of Genesis. This seemed to make be- 

 lief in geological age "days" unavoidable. 

 The view was that the primordial earth was 

 very hot; the water now in the oceans was 

 part of the atmosphere on account of heat; 

 thus "the earth would be waste and void, 

 and darkness would cover the face of the 

 deep." A cooling would partially clear the 

 atmosphere and let light penetrate, also the 

 oceans to form; then would come a sequence 

 of events, or of living things, as described in 

 Genesis. 



However, rimes have changed, knowledge 

 has increased, and the apparent harmony be- 

 tween Genesis and what Prof. Price calif 

 "evolutionary geology" has largely disappeared. 



To begin with geologists no longer assert 

 that the earth was a molten hot globe that 

 gradually cooled, thus developing the history 

 suggested in Genesis. They simply cannot 

 tell the early conditions of the earth, though 

 many believe that the earth started small and 

 cool and grew to its present size and condition. 



Again, Genesis asserts the covering of the 

 earth with vegetation the third day and the 

 creation of water hving creatures, and of 

 birds and "creeping things" on the fifth day 

 This would make one full day between the 

 creation of vegetation and the creation of those 

 animals lower than the beasts. Geology, how 

 ever, has shell fish, and non-vertebrates of all 

 leading types, filling the seas long betore any 

 iigns of land vegetation appeared. Here, then, 

 IS a serious discrepancy between Genesis and 

 geological ages. There are also othei discrep- 

 ancies. The apparent harmony between Gene- 

 sis and standard theories of earth history is 

 very general and indefinite. They agree in 

 the progress from simple earth and simple 

 living things up to the higher forms, but any 

 real identification of definite "days ' of creation 

 with definite geological ages is virtually im- 

 possible. 



Prof. Price and others who have adopted his 

 views of earth history have completely dis- 

 credited the doctrine of geological ages with 

 every careful, honest student of geology and 

 surely one should not wish to harmonize Gene- 

 sis with bad science! 



Let every person interested read carefully 

 the Deluge account: see that awful rains 

 and floods occurred for forty days, that the 

 Ark was afloat for months after that and 

 that it grounded on what is now some of the 

 highest land in western Asia and that a full 

 year and more from the start of the disturb- 

 ance passed before the occupants of the Ark 

 could issue forth on the land. 



The obvious thing to decide is that the ruin 

 we see was the ruin brought about by the 

 Deluge. That is very simple and very na- 

 tural; it clears the whole problem up, not 

 only in theory, but in practical science. There 

 is therefore no occasion whatever for trying 

 to account for the fossils by any pre-Adamic 

 ruin and actual science, too, is contrary to the 

 doctrine of geological ages. If the rocks came 

 through the Deluge and not through geologi- 

 cal ages, literal day creation is the most rea- 

 sonable kind of creation to accept. 



The thing to believe about creation, as 

 indicated both by the Scriptures and by true 

 science, is the divine creation of an ideal earth 

 (evidently in literal days) and the ruin of that 

 earth by the Deluge. Upon the ruins of that 

 earth we now live. There is no occasion to be- 

 lieve in geological age "days." and the evi- 

 dence is against them. 



TIIK (iKK.AT EVOI.ITION DEBATE 



Between Prof. Joseph McCabe and 

 Rev. W. B. Riley, which Riley would not 

 publish in his fundamentalist magazine, 

 appeared in full in three issues of Evo- 

 lution. Postpaid, 25c.; ten or more I5c. 

 each. Sells like hot cakes at meetings. 

 We'll mail the three numbers containing 

 this debate to any list of names for 15c. 

 a set. Fire a Broadside at your friends. 



