96 EVIDENCES AND LIMITATIONS 



it establishes that theory, also justifies the conclusion 

 that man's physical organism is related by unbroken 

 descent to lower and more primitive organisms.^ But 

 much scientific opinion will bear me out in the further 

 con\dction that the human species possesses char- 

 acters which physical evolution alone cannot explain. 

 Human nature being what we observe it to be, super- 

 physical factors are required to account for man's 

 origin; and the evolutionary theory does not fully 

 determine what we ought to believe as to his primitive 

 state, and as to the beginnings of human sinfulness. 

 What I am saying constitutes a vital part of the gen- 

 eral argument of these lectures. Natural evolution, in 

 the present state of scientific knowledge, must be con- 

 fessed to be a real factor in bringing about man's past 

 and present moral state; but it cannot be regarded as 

 the sole cause of our sinful inclinations, without dis- 

 regarding the superphysical aspects of human nature 

 and man's origin, and without failing to do justice to 

 the testimony of conscience as to the reality and ful- 

 ness of our responsibility for sin. In saying this I am 

 anticipating a stage in my argument which I intend to 

 develop more fully in subsequent lectures. 



1 On the evolution of man, see Chas. Darwin, Descent of Man; 

 Thos. Huxley, Man's Place in Nature; A. R. Wallace, Darwinism, 

 ch. xv; H. Caldervvood, Evolution and Man's Place in Nature. 

 What can be said against any evolutionary origin of man can be found 

 in John Thein's Christian Anthropology. A less radical position is 

 taken by Jas. Orr, God's Image, pp. 1 21-136. A sane discussion 

 of the subject is given by Aubrey Moore, Science and the Faith, 

 pp. 200 et seq. 



