George Washington Flowers 
 Memorial Collection 
 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 ESTABLISHED BY THE 
 FAMILY OF 
 COLONEL FLOWERS 
 
Digitized by 
 
 the Internet Archive 
 
 
 in 2015 
 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/ifevolutionistru01durh 
 
E. C. DURHAM 
 
fSf &uoluti 
 
 ion 
 
 rue 
 
 By 
 
 E. C. DURHAM 
 
 (Pastor M. E. Church, South, Vanceboro, 
 North Carolina.) 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 Revised and enlarged. 
 
 All rights reserved by the author. 
 
 August, 1922. 
 
TO 
 
 my three little children, who 
 face a world of truth yet to 
 them quite unknown, this 
 little volume is prayerfully 
 dedicated, with the earnest 
 prayer that they may become 
 diligent and careful students, 
 and that they may find the 
 truth, and then "the truth 
 shall make them free." 
 
r ~ 
 
 
 SALE PRICES OF THIS BOOK 
 
 One copy — 
 
 $1.00 
 
 12 to 100 copies, per copy 
 
 .70 
 
 100 or more copies, per copy 
 
 .65 
 
 Order from the author — 
 
 
 E. C. DURHAM 
 
 
 Vanceboro, N. C. 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Preface 13 
 
 Chapter I, Brief Scientific Pointers 17-28 
 
 Chapter II, Truth and the Seeking After 
 
 It ..29-34: 
 
 Chapter III, Science and Religion 35-39 
 
 Chapter IV, What of God? 41-45 
 
 Chapter V, What of Higher Criticism ?_47-51 
 
 Chapter VI, What of the BibHcal Ac- 
 count of Creation? 53-60 
 
 Chapter VII, What of Miracle? 61-65 
 
 An Afterthought 67 
 
 What Some Critics Say About This 
 
 Book 69-72 
 
PREFACE 
 
 While this second edition is somewhat revised 
 and is more complete than the first edition, the 
 meaning is the same and the general discussion 
 remains unaltered. 
 
 I have not written this book to try to prove that 
 evolution is true. What I have aimed at is this: 
 To help the multitudes who believe evolution is 
 true to see that, even though evolution is a fact, 
 the fundamentals of the Christian faith remain the 
 same. 
 
 I hope this little book will be read with broad 
 sympathy, for the average remark made in the 
 work-a-day world relative to evolution indicates a 
 poor conception of the claims of evolution, and even 
 as if there were no sacredness connected with it. 
 
 Let me state that one can be a thorough and 
 zealous Christian who accepts evolution even in its 
 entirety. If evolution is true, the following things 
 are also true fundamentally: The existence of God, 
 the Bible story of creation, the place of miracle, 
 and also a vital place for Higher Criticism. I have 
 thrown light upon these things in this little book, 
 and I believe that all who read it will be helped. 
 
 It is with the deepest sympathy for believers in 
 evolution that I have written this book. Some have 
 pronounced all argument on evolution simple fool- 
 ishness. I have not so pronounced it, and shall 
 never do so. It is a sacred thing to me, and to 
 many others. Many people cannot do other than 
 believe in evolution. My contention is, if they are 
 going to believe in evolution despite whatever any- 
 body else says, let them believe it, but let them 
 believe in God also, and see God in the whole pro- 
 cess. Therefore, with the hope of helping many 
 and of hurting none I send out this carefully 
 written book to as many as will receive it. 
 
 I am deeply appreciative of the good things 
 friends and critics have written me concerning this 
 book, some of whose letters may be read in the 
 latter part of this edition. — E. C. D. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 BRIEF SCIENTIFIC POINTERS. 
 
 As a text from the world of science for 
 this book the following words found in the 
 New International Encyclopedia will suffice: 
 "The proof of man's origin from some other 
 primate is now past dispute. In fact, no 
 scientist now doubts man's descent, less di- 
 rectly from all lower forms of life, and more 
 immediately from a common ancestor with 
 the anthropoid apes." 
 
 It is evident, therefore, in the outset that 
 the noted Charles Darwin was not the only 
 scientist who has believed in evolution. 
 Neither was Darwin the first believer. We 
 will find upon investigation that ''attempts 
 have been made since the days of Empedocles 
 and of Aristotle to explain the origin of the 
 universe." And while Aristotle is regarded 
 as the father of the theory of descent, the 
 true founder of evolution was Lamarck, an 
 outstanding zoologist who lived from 1744 
 to 1829. Other strong supporters of the 
 belief were Hooker, Huxley, Fritz Muller, 
 Haeckel, Wallace, and Weissman, some as 
 contemporaries of Darwin and some as his 
 followers. Ernst Haeckel, a Geraian scholar 
 
 17 
 
and author, wrote such a convincing book on 
 the "Evolution of Man" as to cause Darwin 
 to state that if he had known such would be 
 produced he would not have written his 
 "Descent of Man." Then certainly to this list 
 of scientists who believed in evolution many 
 more have been added, even, in fact, all 
 scientists ; for, in accordance with the above 
 encyclopedic, authoritative statement, "no 
 scientist now doubts man^s descent * * * 
 from the lower forms of life." 
 
 Nor is the belief in evolution confined to 
 those whom the world knows as eminent 
 scientists. Scientific discoveries have not 
 been made and kept in a secluded comer of 
 the world, nor has the teaching of modern 
 scientists been in vain, so far as the broad- 
 casting of that belief is concerned. Some 
 seed have fallen on good ground; and, some 
 so falling all along through the years of this 
 teaching, there are today untold thousands 
 who believe in evolution. Many scholars are 
 so convinced that evolution is true that they 
 regard it as a simple matter. Many students, 
 both in and out of school, are becoming so 
 convinced. This belief is necessarily bound 
 to grow. Its growing is a part of evolution 
 itself. It perhaps will be as simple some 
 
 18 
 
day to the human family as is today the fact 
 of electricity, gravitation, and the roundness 
 of the earth, or even the heat of the sun. 
 
 This belief is now so universal that some 
 of our modem historians write concerning 
 the course of things through the long ages 
 that preceded man's appearance in the world 
 almost as unhesitatingly as if they had been 
 eye witnesses of the whole process, and they 
 seem to be as clear in their mind concerning 
 the evolution of man from the lower forms 
 of life as being a fact as of any simple fact 
 of present day occurrence. Such a historian 
 is Mr. H. G. Wells, as one may judge from his 
 most fascinating book, "The Outline of His- 
 tory." He begins in this history, however, 
 with this statement : "We do not know how 
 life began upon the earth." He does not 
 claim to believe in spontaneous generation of 
 life as a starting point. But after its begin- 
 ning, he believes in life's long process of 
 development, through the millions of years, 
 until it brought forth man as its fine product. 
 He does not claim to know of all life's con- 
 necting links in this long process, but he 
 seems to have no doubt in his mind that man 
 so came. 
 
 Many others are numbered in this class of 
 
 19 
 
thinking. It has become simple to them. 
 And instead of its making infidels of them^ 
 to many of them God has become a greater 
 reality. And if God has not become a greater 
 reality to all of them, it is simply the fault 
 of those whose weakness has kept them from 
 grasping the finality of things and the deep 
 meaning of all existence of real life. 
 
 Now, is it not possible that it is because 
 of prejudice, or narrow-mindedness, or mere 
 stupidity, or lack of investigation, or a mis- 
 understanding that more, even well-nigh all 
 men, do not believe in the doctrine of evolu- 
 tion? Perhaps it is possible that tradition 
 and a misunderstanding of Scriptures, or the 
 taking of all Scriptures literally, have caused 
 the multitudes to scorn and sneer at the very 
 mention of the doctrine. The great majority 
 of people have not studied geology, biology^ 
 natural history, zoology, nor any branch of 
 science, and it is difficult for them to have 
 sympathetic minds towards the claims of 
 science. From this source usually comes the 
 bulk of criticism against those who assert a 
 belief in evolution. They scarcely know what 
 science is oftentimes. They have failed to 
 consider that science is indeed a very sacred 
 thing. If the whole world had read what 
 
 20 
 
real scientists have learned as the world has 
 read the Scriptures, with far more apprecia- 
 tive minds would all men view the doctrine 
 of evolution. But since science is looked upon 
 by so many as something very contrary to 
 the plan of God, and the laws of nature re- 
 garded, if even recognized at all, as alto- 
 gether separate and apart from God's deal- 
 ings with His people, the unmistakable truths 
 of science, though so near, are far away from 
 the vision of the masses. And many are 
 groping along in darkness, thinking perhaps 
 that their eyes are open. They are blind to 
 what is unmistakably clear to countless 
 thousands. They are seemingly opposed to 
 science and scientists, regardless of clear 
 scientific facts. But opposition to scientific 
 truth is opposition to a part, at least, of all 
 great truth. 
 
 If the study of geology reveals anything, 
 it seems to prove that this earth on which 
 we live was not formed in a day as it now is, 
 but that it came to its approximate present 
 condition through long thousands or millions, 
 or even billions of years. It seems that long 
 ages must have passed before the molten 
 sphere (or mass) cooled down sufficiently for 
 a crust to be formed and for the first signs 
 
 21 
 
of life to appear. It seems that long millions 
 of years must have passed during the devel- 
 opment of life from its lowest forms, and 
 then the covering deep of certain of these 
 forms with great depths of earth so grad- 
 ually, which we find today as fossilized, and 
 which we find sometimes in the coal that we 
 dig and burn. It seems that millions of years 
 must have passed while the sea changed its 
 bed to cover forms of life, and finally for this 
 sea bottom to give rise to a high mountain in 
 its place. Evidences of these things are un- 
 mistakable to the student of geology. 
 
 But some raise opposition here, claiming 
 that such conditions might have been caused 
 by certain tremendous upheavals, catastro- 
 phes, cataclysms, and the like. This, how- 
 ever, is rather an excuse, or a dodging of the 
 question, than the getting rid of real scien- 
 tific facts. This is scarcely anything more 
 than a supposition. The criticism is often 
 hurled against scientists that their claims are 
 based only on supposition, which criticism is 
 false and unjust. There is far more in the 
 discovery of things deep down in the dirt for 
 the side and the claims of science than for 
 the side of those who stand against science. 
 Supposition is sometimes made use of by the 
 
 22 
 
scientist, but there is sometimes the dis- 
 covery of facts without the necessity of sup- 
 position. 
 
 Geology also carries us to where the signs 
 of primeval man are found, and perhaps to 
 some sub-man creature in the process of 
 evolution. We wonder sometimes, therefore, 
 how many long, long ages rolled away while 
 those man-like creatures ran like an animal 
 on hands and feet, until finally man became 
 man — ^standing, walking, hunting— a self- 
 conscious being, with that hazy, primitive 
 intelligence, emotion, and desire. 
 
 The critic, however, says, Where is the 
 connecting link? But is it necessary to find 
 it in its naked, absolute, unmistakable form ? 
 It may be seen more clearly somewhere in 
 the years to come, but if not, enough is al- 
 ready evident to the real student to furnish 
 at least a great deal of satisfaction, and 
 oftentimes a consciousness that his calcula- 
 tions are well founded. Certainly some great 
 changes took place somewhere in the process 
 of evolution. That is where simple mechan- 
 ism is ruled out and where God is especially 
 recognized. Correct modern science does not 
 dare claim that evolution is a mere machine 
 set to work alone, to finish all products by 
 
 23 
 
itself without a Divine Hand to guide. Real 
 science sees God at work, and it especially 
 recognizes Him at all the great and small 
 changes in life's upward march. 
 
 And why should a man be judged as radi- 
 cal, if not crazy, who can see God in that long 
 process of creation? Why is there so often 
 a blazing rage against him, while there is 
 more often than men think a heart within 
 him beating with a mighty passion for the 
 truth and with a faith rooted in the very 
 center of God's being? Why could not God 
 choose to stand at life's every change, from 
 the lower to the higher forms of life — all the 
 way up from the beginning of life in its most 
 infinitesimally small signs — to create, direct, 
 guide, mold, and fashion? It is God's power 
 to do this just as well as to stand at one par- 
 ticular time and, in a moment, create man 
 in His own image. True science today recog- 
 nizes God's place in the whole course of evo- 
 lution, and dares not say that there was never 
 any mysterious change. God is in the whole 
 process, directing and guiding with His own 
 infinite power. These few remarks ought 
 to clear up the whole contention as to the 
 place of change and connecting links. 
 
 Geology certainly reveals that man once 
 
 24 
 
dwelt in caves ; and perhaps there was strife 
 between him and his contemporary animal 
 creatures and would-be associates for mas- 
 tery and ownership of such a home. Le 
 Conte, in his ''Compend of Geology," tells us 
 that ''in a cave at Mentone, near Nice, has 
 been recently found the almost perfect skel- 
 eton of an old man, of more than average 
 height, lying on his side in an easy position, 
 and about him chipped implements and bones 
 of extinct animals, among which were many 
 pierced reindeer's teeth. All of these were 
 perfectly preserved by a stalagmitic crust. 
 We may well imagine," says he, ''that this 
 old hunter, finding his end approaching, re- 
 tired to his cave-home, laid himself quietly 
 down, with the implements and trophies of 
 successful chase about him, and gave up the 
 ghost. Good Mother Nature then slowly 
 buried his remains, and sealed them up be- 
 neath a crust of stalagmite." How long, 
 then, it has been since man first appeared on 
 the stage of life we know not. Some estimate 
 it at more than a hundred thousand years, 
 while some at not more than ten thousand. 
 
 Besides the proof of an early appearance 
 of man in the world, the scientist tells us 
 that "man's origin from some mammal is 
 
 25 
 
strongly attested by the presence in his body 
 of a large number of vestigial characters, 
 which indicate an ancestor that went on all 
 fours — some features appearing shortly be- 
 fore and after birth, hinting at an ape an- 
 cestry." Some mention the appendix in man 
 as being absolutely worthless, and with which 
 we have constant trouble. They mention the 
 fact also that there are more than a score of 
 such useless things found in the human body. 
 It seems, therefore, that man is yet in a 
 period of physical evolution, not yet having 
 left off those things which are absolutely use- 
 less. Some claim that men and women will 
 finally bring forth children without an ap- 
 pendix and many other useless things in 
 man. 
 
 We are told that at first man was a social 
 being, with large brain, and with hands well 
 adepted to carrying out the suggestions of 
 his developing intellect. He was, therefore, 
 the first tool maker and worker in stone, bone, 
 and wood, and the first being to tame other 
 animals and to cultivate the soil. The scien- 
 tist believes that man first lived a very soli- 
 tary life, roving and hunting ; and that tribal 
 communities finally arose here and there as 
 man developed and multiplied; and that he 
 
 26 
 
became a herdsman, then a farmer, and on 
 and on to newer and more difficult things. 
 Some one states a belief that man, during 
 the Paleolithic age, scattered over wide areas 
 of earth's surface, and that "then ensued a 
 process of isolation by geographical and 
 climatic barriers and the differentiation into 
 races — the black being confined to Africa, the 
 yellow to Asia, the red Indian to the 
 Americas, while the cradle of the white race 
 was in the region now including central and 
 southern Europe, and Africa north of the 
 Sahara and the Sudan." 
 
 We are told also of man's social and relig- 
 ious evolution, which is not disputed by any- 
 body who is a student of history ; for doubt- 
 less and evidently such evolution is going on 
 today. While once, with primitive man, mar- 
 riage was little more than animal mating 
 and religion nothing more than a vague idea 
 of some future existence, today there is a 
 deeper sacredness connected with marriage 
 and the family life, and we really live as 
 social beings in a great social order; while 
 religiously we have grown in our conception 
 
 27 
 
of God and humanity, with our theology and 
 our brotherhood of man, with our churches 
 and our denominations, our rehgions and our 
 creeds, our faith and our practice. 
 
 28 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 TRUTH AND THE SEEKING AFTER IT. 
 
 It is noted that the title of this book is, 
 If Evolution Is True. I have not undertaken 
 to prove that it is true. If I had set myself 
 to this task, more than one small volume 
 would have been the result of my efforts. 
 The volumes already written on the subject 
 of evolution are bulky and numerous. I have 
 merely stated, with some degree of sym- 
 pathy, a few things claimed by modern 
 scientists as pointing towards the fact of 
 evolution. 
 
 If evolution is true, certain questions arise 
 in those minds which really want to know the 
 whole truth. The human mind wants to go 
 farther than to conclude that evolution is a 
 fact, whether it be the mind of the learned 
 philosopher or the mind of the most humble 
 recipient of stated facts from the scientific 
 world. There is deep down in the human 
 soul a crying for the truth, a crying for the 
 light, and oftentimes with "no language but 
 a cry." Thoughts are sometimes too deep 
 and too sacred to be uttered. But men have 
 the right to seek to know how to ask ques- 
 tions, and equally as true have they the right 
 
 29 
 
to find, in so far as possible, a satisfactory 
 answer to all worthy questions. 
 
 I hold that wheresoever there is such a 
 longing cry in the soul of man it ought not 
 to be suppressed. Why smother it, and 
 travel on unsatisfied and restless, or fickle, 
 as the case may be, to the end of the earthly 
 journey? The desire for searching after the 
 truth should not be smothered, for if it is, 
 I believe it more oftentimes results in fickle- 
 ness than anything else. The seeker is told 
 hy some careless, short-sighted person that 
 his undertakings are foolish and dangerous, 
 and he gives up, let us imagine, to be content 
 with an idle mind, which is "the devil's work- 
 shop." Such a person is more dangerous to 
 human society than any diligent, careful 
 student in any branch of science can ever be. 
 There is no real danger in careful investiga- 
 tion. 
 
 The questions arise in every thinking man. 
 He may have been taught while growing to 
 manhood to condemn such doctrine, to dis- 
 miss the thought from his mind, without 
 even making investigation. But when he 
 steps out as a free man to live his life among 
 free men, he comes, in many cases, to the 
 conclusion that he has the right to search for 
 
 30 
 
the truth. In his pursuit he sometimes be- 
 comes entangled with doubt — dark doubt, 
 that sees no Hght, and that sees no meaning 
 to Hfe, with so much of strange, mysterious, 
 hurting pain within himself that he feels he 
 cannot live nor can he die, except it be to 
 follow some trail to some place of sacrifice, 
 a place of slaughter, and there, unseen, to 
 end it ail; but when such is done — ^the place 
 found, the knife drawn — he looks to see, not 
 a ram caught in the bush, but a ray of light 
 appearing in the East, and he watches it 
 grow, and change, and brighten, until the 
 full-orbed sun rises and a new day is on and 
 a dark night gone. 
 
 Which, then, is worth more to humanity 
 and to God — the boy discouraged and ending 
 in fickleness, or the one who at one time 
 thought it was all in vain and fatal to him, 
 but who came through the storm of doubt to 
 vital faith, through darkness to light, fully 
 persuaded that God is in it all, and who is not 
 afraid of anything that anybody, anywhere, 
 may discover or assert at any time? 
 
 Sometime it is not really doubt, after all, 
 that the fellow runs up against, so much as it 
 is a struggle to appropriate the new truth 
 discovered. It is so different from what he 
 
 31 
 
has been taught to believe that he can scarce- 
 ly grasp it. But after it is taken as truth, 
 and he sees it harmonizing with the truth 
 already known, he arises with joy to thank 
 God for the truth so mysteriously fixed or 
 hidden, and now so clearly seen. Then is he 
 the stronger for his place in Time and 
 Eternity. 
 
 I say to the young man or woman, Seek 
 after all the scientific facts that can be found, 
 and in it all seek to see the hand of God. 
 Such seeking cannot lead one far astray. If 
 in this seeking one decides that God has been 
 billions of years making man, one may also 
 decide that, after all and in it all, God is. 
 This age needs to know that both God and 
 scientific facts may be sought and found, and 
 that neither will work against the other. 
 
 If evolution is true, then, let it be true, and 
 let it be accepted as true. If it is true, it ia 
 a part of all great truth, and a sacred part. 
 If it is true, it is right to believe it is true, 
 and no man should be afraid of this truth. 
 If it is true (and thousands declare it is), let 
 all the orthodox Christian world deny it and 
 let me believe it, and if I am right, I am on 
 the side of safety ; for if it is true, God made 
 
 32 
 
it true, and I am perfectly right in standing 
 with God. 
 
 No man has the right, without making the 
 most thorough and painstaking investigation 
 of all scientific discoveries, to assert that evo- 
 lution is not true. The belief in evolution is 
 not necessarily dangerous. If it is a lie it is 
 dangerous, but if it is truth — it is as treach- 
 erous for man to trample this truth under 
 foot as to trample upon any great truth. If 
 evolution is true, it is a sacred truth, and 
 man should calmly and reverently, even with 
 uncovered head and open mind and heart, 
 approach it to make investigation. 
 
 Many Godly scientists are often criticised 
 and pronounced infidels and dangerous, while 
 deep down within them there is a calmness 
 and there is poise with the consolation that 
 there is One who knows and sympathizes, and 
 they courageously go forth in their busy pur- 
 suits, conscious of the fact that ''right the 
 day must win." • 
 
 Just here it is appropriate and right to 
 make the assertion that the human race is 
 seriously and pitiably hindered in its forward 
 march by the unwillingness and stupid slow- 
 ness, on the part of the multitudes, in not 
 
 33 
 
laying hold of the truth as found by the few, 
 or in not seeking after that truth. It is a 
 great struggle for great truths to be discov- 
 ered, and then through struggle the poor 
 discoverer lives to tell the tale, and dies, in 
 many an instance, weary in heart, unappre- 
 ciated, and unmourned. "The great achieve- 
 ments of a people are generally wrought by 
 the minority." 
 
 The facts that come to us, therefore, from 
 the world of science, and all light or sign of 
 light pointing in that direction, should be 
 recognized and appreciated. If they are true 
 facts and if it is true light, no other truth 
 can be hurt because these are true. Then if 
 these things are true, let those who submit 
 these truths and those to whom they are sub- 
 mitted act as brother with brother, and the 
 putting together of all truths known will 
 make a happy day for earth and heaven. 
 
 34 
 
CHAPTER in. 
 
 SCIENCE AND RELIGION. 
 
 If evolution is true, is there any broad or 
 frightening contrast between science and re- 
 ligion? They seem to have been so contrast- 
 ed as to make it broad and frightening, for 
 the preceding years have witnessed, as it 
 were, a pitched battle between the two, just 
 as if there were no common God over both. 
 Too many scientists have been inclined to 
 believe that there is no God, while too many 
 religionists have been too rigid in their criti- 
 cisms against the claims of science. But to- 
 day, after the advance of science and religion, 
 after the growth of the human brotherhood 
 in its discoveries in all fields, in its sympa- 
 thies, and in its fellowship, is there any real- 
 place for a battle between the two ? 
 
 In partly answering this question, I refer 
 to a prefatory remark in Drummond's "Nat- 
 ural Law in the Spiritual World,** which reads 
 as follows: ^'Science is tired of reconcilia- 
 tions between two things which never should 
 have been contrasted; Religion is offended by 
 the patronage of an ally which it professes 
 not to need ; and the critics have rightly dis- 
 covered that, in most cases where Science is^ 
 
 35 
 
either pitted against Religion or fused with 
 it, there is some fatal misconception to begin 
 with as to the scope and province of either." 
 
 It should be recognized, therefore, that 
 each has a place — a "scope and province." 
 Then if this is true, there should be no scrap- 
 ping between the two. 
 
 Why fight? Why rage one against the 
 other ? God is back of, and in, both. Science 
 is a fact, and no man can deny it. Since 
 there is a scientific world, God made it so, for 
 "without Him was not anything made that 
 was made." Religion is a fact. God made 
 it possible. There is a difference. There is 
 a place for both, but each can be a blessing 
 to the other. 
 
 No man, I suppose, in this great day of en- 
 lightenment, would dare say, or wish to be- 
 lieve, that we live in a lawless world. Then, 
 if there are laws at work in the natural 
 world, let those laws be discovered and the 
 results of such discoveries be turned over 
 to the theologian. The contention and in- 
 terest of theology are not against law, but 
 rather, with science, it must insist upon law. 
 Such is the opinion of Henry Churchill King, 
 and to quote him exactly, he says : "No man 
 
 36 
 
is without concern in the question, Is there 
 any really rational universe, with any justi- 
 fiable end ? Have ideals of any kind any real 
 place in this universe ? The simple fact that 
 the so-called 'problem of eviV is a universal 
 problem, that it necessarily arises for every 
 thoughtful man, is the best possible proof 
 that every man actually makes the assump- 
 tion which underlies the ideal contention 
 that mechanism is means only. That is, all 
 these questionings concerning the problem of 
 evil assume that the world ought to have 
 worth, and not mere logical consistency, if it 
 is to be really rational." 
 
 So long as scientific investigation simply 
 seeks the facts, and thereby makes more 
 clear to mankind how God did really proceed, 
 we ought to be glad to know what science 
 really finds. Thorough and competent in- 
 vestigation is the only demand religion ought 
 to make of science, that science be purified 
 by religion as well as religion by science, so 
 that science may become the great expositor 
 of nature. And Wordsworth says : 
 
 "Science then 
 Shall be a precious visitant; and then 
 And only then, he worthy of her name: 
 For then her heart shall kindle, her dull eye, 
 Dull and inanimate, no more shall hang 
 
 37 
 
Chained to its object in brute slavery; 
 
 But taught with patient interest to watch 
 
 The process of things, and serve the cause 
 
 Of order and distinctness, nor for this 
 
 Shall it forget that its most noble use. 
 
 Its most illustrious province, must be found 
 
 In furnishing clear guidance, a support, 
 
 Not treacherous, to the mind's excursive power." 
 
 So, with this as clear, he must be right who 
 says that **the only answer to erroneous crit- 
 icism or science is better criticism or science, 
 not the forbidding of investigation." He who 
 would hinder true investigation, in whatso- 
 ever field undertaken, stands in the way of all 
 real progress. 
 
 On the other hand, let it be said that he 
 who carelessly investigates in any field or 
 branch of science, and investigates without 
 real sympathy for the whole of truth, is not 
 worthy of the name of scientist, and is 
 worthy only of the most severe condemnation 
 from all who are great and true. Further- 
 more, I agree with Carpenter, that "when 
 science, passing beyond its own limits, as- 
 sumes to take the place of theology, and sets 
 up its own conception of the order of nature 
 as a sufiicient account of its cause, it is in- 
 vading a province of thought to which it has 
 no claim, and not unreasonably provokes the 
 hostility of its best friends." That is the 
 
 38 
 
fault of the scientist ; not of science. Science 
 itself does not claim to be able to lead a soul 
 to God, but it helps in finding where God has 
 been and how He has worked. 
 
 With regard, therefore, to all that is dear 
 to science and religion, let humanity hold to 
 science with the left hand and turn with the 
 right hand toward religion, and say: "Open 
 thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous 
 things, more wondrous than the shining 
 worlds can tell." It is great to believe with 
 Lemuel Moss, "that just as the workman in 
 the tunnel of St. Gothard, working from 
 either end, met at last to shake hands in the 
 very central root of the mountain, so students 
 of nature and students of Christianity will 
 yet join hands in the unity of reason and 
 faith, in the heart of their deepest mys- 
 teries." 
 
 39 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 WHAT OF GOD? 
 
 If evolution is true, what should be the 
 human conception of God ? Is God to be less 
 adored, or thought of as having less to do 
 with creation, or taken to be any the less 
 God? 
 
 This is a question of primary importance, 
 as well as a question of deep interest, for 
 some believers in evolution have left God out 
 of the whole scheme and process of things. 
 To believe in spontaneous generation for the 
 very beginning of all life, and then in just 
 simply a natural selection of species for the 
 whole course of evolution until man is the 
 final and highest product, with no God save 
 nature to direct the selections, is an erron- 
 eous belief. No man can explain away the 
 great First Cause. The claim of spontaneous 
 generation will not be accepted as a substi- 
 tute for the Infinite Creator. It makes no 
 difference how long the process of evolution 
 has been going on, God is back of the process 
 and in the process to its end. He is back of, 
 and Creator of, the first germ of life. We 
 recognize life, but God was the Life back of 
 all other life. We recognize laws of nature, 
 
 41 
 
but God was the great Lawgiver. 
 
 Even Huxley announces that the doctrine 
 of life from life is "victorious along the whole 
 line at the present day/' And even though 
 he wished it otherwise, Professor Tyndall is 
 compelled to say : "I affirm that no shred of 
 trustworthy experimental testimony exists 
 to prove that life in our day has ever ap- 
 peared independently of antecedent life." 
 
 So far as I am concerned, and so far as any 
 man should be concerned, let God be recog- 
 nized as God and Creator, and then let that 
 first small germ of life finally, by God's power 
 and guiding hand, through the long millions 
 of years, result in all the fine products of life 
 with man as its climax. If that was His 
 plan, or whatsoever was His plan, greatly 
 to be praised is our God. 
 
 The following quotation here from Kobert 
 Chalmer's "Vestiges of Creation" is appro- 
 priate and helpful: "Let no one suppose 
 there is any necessary disrespect for the 
 Creator in thus tracing His laws in their 
 minute and familiar operations. There is 
 really no true great and small, grand and 
 familiar, in Nature. Such only appear when 
 we thrust ourselves in as a point from which 
 
 42 
 
to start in judging. Let us pass, if possible, 
 beyond immediate impressions, and see all in 
 relation to cause, and we shall chastenedly 
 admit that the whole is alike worshipful. 
 
 * * * The Creator, then, is seen to have 
 formed our earth, and effected upon it a long 
 and complicated series of changes, in the 
 same manner in which we find that He con- 
 ducts the affairs of Nature before our living 
 eyes; that is, in the manner of natural law. 
 
 * * * Here at once is the whole region of 
 the inorganic taken out of the dominion of 
 marvel, and placed under an idea of Divine 
 regulation." 
 
 This is a scientific view which should be 
 appreciated. This is a man who believes in 
 nature at work, with a God over nature and 
 back of nature, as Creator and as Guide. 
 God can be creator of life and of man through 
 a billion-year process, if He chooses, as well 
 as to create in a moment. No less is His 
 power in so doing, and many, along with 
 myself, are inclined to have a larger concep- 
 tion of God in thinking of Him as the original 
 Designer of all things and then of creating 
 that small beginning of life and setting it to 
 work, and working with and in it all, to de- 
 velop and unfold, finally and gradually, those 
 
 43 
 
splendid forms of life which would please 
 Him. If this was His method, what a De- 
 signer ! What an Infinite Intelligence ! What 
 an Omnipotence! What an Omniscience! 
 How unmistakable His calculations! How 
 gratified He must have been to look upon 
 that first man, as the budding flower of that 
 whole stalk of life, after all the long process 
 of use and disuse, selection and rejection, 
 change and adaptation — this best of all His 
 creation, this birth out of all struggle, this 
 fittest of all in triumphant survival — man, 
 in the very image of God ! 
 
 If the Psalmist had known all this, it seems 
 that his considerations of the heavens and of 
 life would have been far greater, even, and 
 that his exclamation would have been hurled 
 out of a far deeper wonder: "What is man, 
 that thou art mindful of him! * * * Thou 
 hast made him a little lower than the angels, 
 and hast crowned him with glory and 
 honor!" 
 
 As the farmer plants with all confidence 
 his seed of corn in the springtime, and works 
 and waits through the months, beholding the 
 tiny and the growing stalk, and the blade 
 after blade, and then the shoot, to behold 
 finally the full corn in the ear, so perhaps the 
 
 44 
 
Creator planted the germ with His plan for 
 man, finally to see him as designed. And 
 God, either gradually or in the twinkling of 
 an eye, but somehow in a mysterious way, 
 "breathed into man the breath of life, and 
 ''^man became a living soul." 
 
 45 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 WHAT OF HIGHER CRITICISM? 
 
 If evolution is true, can the Church afford 
 to condemn higher criticism of the Bible as 
 such? My answer at once is, Not by any 
 means, unless the Church wishes to be de- 
 prived of a blessing. Constructive criticism 
 can never do any harm, and it should never 
 be condemned. 
 
 Higher criticism is the logical and inevita- 
 ble thing along with the scientific view of the 
 world. Scientific investigations and discov- 
 eries necessarily give rise to a critical view 
 of the Bible. This does not mean an attack 
 on the Bible, and the Church should have no 
 real fear of its outcome, but should rather 
 welcome it, so long as this biblical investiga- 
 tion is competent, and is made without preju- 
 dice, and is made with the motive of finding 
 the real truth. 
 
 Rightly and soundly has Henry Churchill 
 King spoken to this point, as seen in the fol- 
 lowing statements: "It is unfortunate that 
 in the early stages of higher criticism in 
 America, for particular reasons, it came to 
 be associated, in the minds of many, with a 
 rather bitter and arrogant spirit; and it is 
 
 47 
 
even more unfortunate that, for many more, 
 for other special reasons, it was identified 
 with the most extreme results of an a priori 
 anti-supernaturalistic school. It ought to be 
 clear to every one by this time, however, that 
 higher criticism is a method, not results ; and 
 that, like the historical or scientific method 
 anywhere, it will give sound results only as 
 the investigator is competently furnished for 
 his particular inquiry, is modest in face of 
 the facts, is free from prejudice, and is of 
 genuine soundness of judgment." 
 
 Through the course of higher criticism so 
 far the critics have been in danger of the 
 extreme view, on the one hand, that the 
 record of divine revelation must be without 
 touch of human error, and on the other hand, 
 the view that the supernatural is impossible. 
 But higher criticism is not to be condemned 
 because some have abused its methods, along 
 with their false views of things. 
 
 The Church, then, should frankly face the 
 facts, "without timidity and without preju- 
 dice." Both the critic and the student are 
 under obligation to each other to be free from 
 prejudice. The learned critic rightfully has 
 his place, and so has the student and zealous 
 worker. There is no place for prejudice. 
 
 48 
 
Whether it be racial, religious, denomina- 
 tional, or wherever found and of whatsoever 
 character, it is to be condemned. Prejudice 
 is never a sign, or mark, of greatness, but 
 of littleness and narrowness. It indicates 
 small capacity, dim vision, and little or no 
 sympathy. 
 
 Criticism., instead of being a hindrance, is 
 a real help to the earnest student of the 
 Bible. According to Dr. George Adam Smith, 
 "If one person is likely to suffer shipwreck 
 through the employment of higher criticism, 
 the faith of ten will break down — is breaking 
 down — for lack of the very help it would 
 bring." And, quoting King again, "So far 
 as the spiritual life is concerned, all these 
 critical processes are only means to higher 
 ends." 
 
 Let it be remembered that higher criticism 
 does not deny the Bible, nor revelation, nor 
 truth. It seeks only to find how God did 
 things, and how He spake, through whom His 
 messages came to men and when, and to find 
 the real truth whether it be old or new, just 
 as the scientist seeks to find in the natural 
 world the facts as God so caused them to 
 come about. The books of the Bible, and 
 their worth to the world, remain fundament- 
 
 49 
 
ally the same after the discoveries of higher 
 criticism, just as the natural world about us 
 is not changed one bit by the discoveries of 
 modern science. Just as science makes more 
 intelligible the natural world about us unto 
 all who seek to study it, so does higher criti- 
 cism make more intelligible God's Book to its 
 students. It comes knocking at our doors as 
 a messenger of truth, and who is afraid to 
 open the door for the light of truth to walk 
 in? Ah, how often men turn away angels 
 unawares ! How often men fight, when they 
 think they are fighting the enemies of God's 
 Word and of truth, and they are fighting the 
 very servants of truth ! 
 
 It will not hurt the Church to know the 
 truth. It may be necessary for the Church, 
 from time to time, to reconstruct its theology, 
 but it will never be called upon to reconstruct 
 the truth. Not only is the mind of man 
 growing in this scientific age, but all that is 
 connected with the human soul in its deepest 
 reality is broadening, deepening, expanding, 
 and it sees today a larger and grander and 
 different world of spiritual truth than was 
 ever realized by the great souls of other 
 days. We do not laugh at the thoughts and 
 efforts and standards of those old people, for 
 
 50 
 
religious effort and faith are always pecul- 
 iarly sacred things, in whatsoever age they 
 are seen, or by whatsoever people, and seek- 
 ing whatsoever god they are taught to be- 
 lieve. 
 
 To conclude these few remarks on the 
 place of higher criticism, I will use the fol- 
 lowing paragraph from Dr. Orr's book, "The 
 Christian View of God and the World": 
 "The biblical conception is separated from 
 every other by its monotheistic basis, its 
 unique clearness, its organic unity, its moral 
 character and its teleological aim. It does 
 not matter for the purposes of this argument 
 what dates we assign to the books of the Old 
 Testament in which these views are found — 
 whether we attribute them, with the critics, 
 to the age of the prophets, or to any other. 
 These views are at least there many centuries 
 before the Christian age began, and they are 
 found nowhere else than on the soil of Israel. 
 This is the singular fact the critic has to face, 
 and we cannot profess to wonder that, im- 
 partially studying it, voices should be heard 
 from the midst of the advanced school itself, 
 unhesitatingly declaring. Date your books 
 when you will, this religion is not explicable 
 save on the hypothesis of Revelation." 
 
 51 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 V/HAT OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF 
 CREATION? 
 
 If evolution is true, what further thing are 
 we to say in this book as to the account of 
 creation as found in Genesis, whosoever the 
 author was of that first book of the Bible? 
 This is the one big question, perhaps, stand- 
 ing in the mind of any one to whom any men- 
 tion of evolution is made, at least when the 
 first thoughts are had concerning this doc- 
 trine and possibility. For that reason several 
 remarks have already been made in this little 
 volume which should rightly hold their place 
 in the discussion of this particular question. 
 But if a slight repetition is made here and 
 there in this book, let the reader understand 
 that the author of this volume wishes for 
 certain things to be perfectly clear in the 
 minds of those who shall read these pages. 
 
 Right at this point is where a great chasm 
 seems to yawn between the thoughts of some 
 people and the claims of evolutionists. They 
 seem to see no possibility of a long process 
 of creation and still hold to the so-called 
 Mosaic description of creation. Great minds, 
 too, are numbered in this class, of which the 
 
 53 
 
mind of that noble-hearted William Jennings 
 Bryan is one. No one would dare say that 
 his is not a great soul ; but he has made some 
 very hard statements against evolutionists, 
 yet with a motive pure, for he would not 
 break away from orthodox biblical faith. I 
 do not wish for him to depart from his faith 
 in the Scriptures, nor for any man to do so. 
 That is why I have made the effort in writ- 
 ing this book to help puzzled minds to be 
 clarified, that the thousands of young men 
 and women especially who are doing some 
 scientific thinking in these days may see how 
 that the Scriptures and evolution may both 
 be true fundamentally. Such comments as 
 Mr. Bryan is making, as much as I honor 
 him, are only making it harder for the multi- 
 tudes who can never consistently give up 
 their evolutionary beliefs. While one here 
 and there may be helped by his remarks, 
 hundreds have gone down deeper into doubt 
 and some into gross infidelity. 
 
 I am glad to say to as many as will take 
 courage from this word out of a heart of deep 
 conviction, There is no necessary conflict to 
 be found between the statements in Genesis 
 and the claims of the evolutionist. Sticking 
 closely to the letter, we will, of course, find 
 
 54 
 
some inconsistences. But we must remember 
 that the author of Genesis was not an eye 
 witness of creation. He certainly did not see 
 the first man that was made, much less the 
 process of making him. We must remember 
 also that, even though that author was in- 
 spired of God, he did not know all things. 
 No one could dare say that the author of 
 Genesis even knew the earth was round, 
 while at the same time it was round, just as 
 it is today. Neither, of course, did he know 
 anything about the law of gravitation, which 
 was at work then as now. These scientific 
 discoveries have been made since that good 
 day. Yet we believe he was inspired. We 
 believe in revelation. 
 
 Of course Mr. Bryan is right when he says 
 that the rotundity of the earth and gravita- 
 tion do not make so much difference with a 
 man's soul, in so far as a knowledge of those 
 things is concerned. My argument is not that, 
 but this: Not all things known today were 
 known then, and we have to admit the pos- 
 sibility of, and the fact of, inspiration where 
 there is not a knowledge of all things. Inspir- 
 ation does not mean that God gave every 
 word, but that He gave thought. The one 
 inspired had to express that thought in the 
 
 55 
 
words that could be chosen out of his own 
 vocabulary, using his own style, imagination, 
 and holy passion. 
 
 If it is conceded that there is use of figura- 
 tive expressions anywhere in the Bible (and 
 certainly Christ made constant use of them) , 
 we might as well conclude that the author of 
 Genesis made use of some such expressions. 
 If we know that any present day writer uses 
 imagination, we may also know that the 
 author of Genesis made use of imagination. 
 
 Then, how much can be expressed of won- 
 drous and deep truth in one figurative expres- 
 sion! When shall we ever know all that 
 Christ meant in those figurative expressions 
 of His? We find ourselves to this day dif- 
 fering in opinion as to some of His teachings. 
 If it was Moses that wrote the book, what did 
 Moses mean when he described that beautiful 
 order of creation? Rather what did God 
 mean to tell His children ? Did he mean that, 
 it would be a certain sign of infidelity, or 
 atheism, for a man to state, "I believe that 
 God was longer than a few short days mak- 
 ing this world and the different species and 
 possibilities of life found therein"? Did God 
 say what one of those days was in length 
 when the ''light was not separated from 
 
 56 
 
darkness"? For the sun was not created 
 until the fourth day, according to Genesis. 
 Is it not possible that He left it open, with 
 certain things not said in so many words, 
 that the scientific mind of far later days 
 might find certain satisfaction in its thoughts 
 of a long process of creation ? The time was 
 not ripe then for the revealing of such truth 
 in its absolute form. It is a progressive 
 revelation of Himself that we notice all 
 through the Old Testament. The human race 
 grew gradually to where His real Fatherhood 
 was known. 
 
 Coming with a sound belief in evolution to 
 the study of Genesis and its story of creation, 
 no student should conclude that his faith in 
 God or in the Bible should be forsaken. There 
 is no need for faith to be shattered in the 
 least. 
 
 We find in Genesis the expression, "He 
 formed man of the dust of the ground." 
 What did He mean? Do we not see the pos- 
 sibility of nature connected with that? Is 
 that not what the scientist has been talking 
 about these many years — the coming of man 
 through the things that grew in the dust or 
 dirt? It was the natural with the Super- 
 natural presiding. One thought has been, 
 
 e57 
 
according to the Bible, that God picked up 
 dust and made man in a moment, while the 
 other thought has been, according to science, 
 that God made man gradually through the 
 dust. What is the difference ? Where is the 
 conflict? Where is God's power compro- 
 mised in the claims of science? 
 
 Listen to this — Which is more like God, 
 after all, and His methods, as we think of 
 His dealings with men all through history? 
 Does God ever take short-cut routes in His 
 procedures? Is it not true that the world's 
 leaders in thought and deed have so gotten 
 away from the short-cut idea that preachers 
 and teachers are universally warning the 
 human family against such methods ? 
 
 Take courage, anybody, that God can 
 create gradually as well as momentarily. 
 Rejoice that God has the power, if He 
 chooses, to create man in His own image, 
 through any long process He may desire, or 
 through any seemingly complicated series of 
 living things with all their changes that He 
 may select — even through ten thousand mil- 
 lion years, if He seeks to work at it that long. 
 And rejoice all at the same time that the 
 Bible is fundamentally the same. Where is 
 the mind that cannot conceive of that ? What 
 
 58 
 
finite creature, with little mental compass, 
 would venture to assert that God, with His 
 infinite power, could not do such as has just 
 been described if that was His choice? Who 
 can prove by the Bible that this was not His 
 choice ? 
 
 God said, *'Let us make man in our image.'* 
 I can well imagine that He said those words 
 long millions of years before He saw man. 
 I can imagine that as His own choice plan, 
 saying it with great anticipation and joy. 
 
 ''Let us make man" ! 
 
 "Let the Trinity decide upon man as the 
 climax of this long line of creation — man in 
 our image — and man shall come after a long 
 while to have some of our intelligence, our 
 will-power, our soul, with a soul as sure and 
 as pure as the rose that blooms at the top 
 of the brier." 
 
 Then I hear that conversation among the 
 Trinity, and the question, "Vs^ill man remain 
 pure, or will that flower fade and die?". The 
 answer comes, ''He may remain as we fashion 
 him, if he desires with his power of choice to 
 do so ; but he will have the capacity of falling, 
 of fading, and of dying." 
 
 Created either way, it is just as possible 
 
 59 
 
for man to fall one way as the other. When- 
 ever man became man, howsoever he became 
 so, he became capable of falling. If evolution 
 is true, it was when man was evoluted to 
 that point where he was really man, con- 
 scious of will-power and the capability and 
 the freedom to choose, that he fell — and that 
 fall was nothing more than his choice to have 
 his own way and let God alone. 
 
 60 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 WHAT OF MIRACLE? 
 
 If evolution is true, the final question in 
 this book is, How can miracle be accounted 
 for? 
 
 This question has also arisen, as the other 
 -questions discussed in this book, because of 
 the claims of modern science. It is hoped, 
 however, that by this time in the progress of 
 thought and religion, the question as to the 
 possibility of the miraculous, or the super- 
 natural in nature or persons, has largely been 
 solved to the peaceful satisfaction of those 
 concerned. 
 
 Enough has already been said in this book 
 to throw light upon the province of miracle. 
 The evolutionist runs up with miracle to be- 
 gin with in the great First Cause. He runs 
 up with it in life's changes, great or small. 
 If it is conceded that the planets and the 
 stars have all been hurled to their places by 
 nature, each now working so beautifully in 
 its place, what is that but miracle? If the 
 earth was thrown off from the sun as a ball 
 of fire, and through process of time it cooled 
 sufficiently for the appearance and the exist- 
 ence of life, and that life came and developed 
 
 61 
 
to its present high forms, what is that but 
 miracle? When we think of the fact that 
 human flesh, finger nails, bone, hair, teeth, 
 and all that the physical body contains, are 
 produced by the daily bread and meat taken 
 into the body — what is that but miracle? 
 When we see in one field sheep, goats, geese, 
 pigs, and all eating the same sort of grass, 
 and we know that this same grass is produc- 
 ing wool on one, feather on another, and 
 hair on another — what is that but miracle? 
 
 But it is miracle of a supposedly different 
 nature altogether that is under discussion. 
 Yet who knows how far different it is? If 
 our finite minds could comprehend all, how 
 plainly the problem would be solved ! What 
 marvelous harmony with the Infinite would 
 be recognized ! 
 
 Evolution in its real sense, rather than giv- 
 ing us uniformity of law, gives us successive 
 stages of law with new laws coming in all 
 along, which become dominant, while before 
 they had not even appeared. Then what is 
 that law in the higher stage, as judged from 
 the lower, but miracle? Law is universally 
 recognized in nature, but as Lotze says, "It 
 is completely subordinate in significance." 
 Law itself is not God. God acts according to 
 
 62 
 
law, "in perfect consistency with His un- 
 changing purpose of love ; but His action may 
 not always be formulable under any of the 
 laws of nature known to us." "Rare phe- 
 nomena are not lawless." 
 
 Dr. John H. Denison rings clear at this 
 point, as we note in these words: "As the 
 philosophy of experience broadened out, 
 Hume's postulate was reinforced so as to 
 read, 'A miracle is contrary to a law of na- 
 ture ; therefore an overweighting amount of 
 evidence is required to prove it.' But the 
 same lack of breadth soon appeared in this 
 postulate. Our experience does not cover the 
 whole breadth of nature. We are never cer- 
 tain but that some new and larger order may 
 begin to disclose itself, and it is, in fact, just 
 such a larger order which the miracles ap- 
 pear to suggest and always have suggested 
 to some of the most spiritual and philoso- 
 phical minds of the race." 
 
 As to the point of God's personal approach 
 to men, since He is a Spirit and certainly not 
 "sub-personal," we cannot deny His right nor 
 His power to make approach to persons on 
 earth, though His appearance may seem to 
 be extremely miraculous to finite minds. 
 There is nothing impossible to the Infinite. 
 
 63 
 
Finite minds in this world gaze upon the 
 Infinite oftentimes, and wonder how the 
 Infinite can do what is done. The scientist 
 is bound at times to admit, as well as the 
 theologian is bound to admit, that "great is 
 the mystery of godliness." 
 
 God made personal approach, through love 
 and power, in the person of Jesus Christ, and 
 Christ Himself may, therefore, be regarded 
 as the miracle of miracles. The fact of His 
 life, character, and teachings as a miracle is 
 incontestable, and He is the great "New 
 Cause." 
 
 Lotze, again, in speaking of God's appear- 
 ing to men in the person of Christ, says: 
 "There is nothing whatever that stands in 
 opposition to the further conviction that God, 
 at particular moments and in particular per- 
 sons, may have stood nearer to humanity, or 
 may have revealed Himself at such moments 
 and in such persons in a more eminent way 
 than at other moments and in other persons. 
 * * * It is even without doubt legitimate to 
 reward the relation in which He (Christ) 
 stood to God as absolutely unique, not only 
 as to degree but also as to its essential 
 quality." 
 
 This chapter, this entire book, is closed 
 
 64 
 
with the following sentence from Henry 
 Churchill King : "The question of miracle is^ 
 then, nowhere the question of the 'isolated 
 wonder/ but everywhere rather the question 
 of the wider law, the larger correlation, the 
 dominant spiritual order increasingly clear 
 to a growing spiritual culture, the consis- 
 tency of the one great loving purpose of a 
 God great enough and loving enough to be 
 all that His children need." 
 
 65 
 
AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 
 
 After I have written all that is in 
 this little book, I can truthfuly say that 
 I have a ''conscience void of offence to- 
 ward God, and toward men." 
 
 — E. C. D. 
 
 67 
 
WHAT SOME CRITICS HAVE VERY 
 KINDLY WRITTEN THE AUTHOR 
 OF THIS VOLUME CONCERN- 
 ING ITS CONTENTS. 
 
 "Your book, "If Evolution Is True," came into 
 my hands yesterday, and I read it through at once 
 with a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure. It 
 did me good to know that you had thought through 
 the questions that have bobbed up afresh during 
 the last two or three years and that you have gone 
 to the trouble to make religion intelligible to the 
 student who has learned enough of science to 
 realize that the cosmos of the modern man is some- 
 what larger than that of the ancient Hebrews. I 
 hope that the book will have a large circulation 
 and that many other men in North Carolina and in 
 other parts of the Church will undertake to help 
 in saving the Church from obscurantism. Thoughts 
 like those contained in your book will bring peace 
 to the thousands of young men and women that 
 are necessarily more or less disturbed by the scien- 
 tific facts acquired in high school and college." 
 
 — DR. G. T. ROWE, 
 
 Editor Methodist Review, 
 
 Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 "I thank you for sending me your interesting 
 discussion "If Evolution Is True." I heartily agree 
 with your general position that acceptance of the 
 doctrine of evolution does not compromise a man's 
 Christian beliefs." 
 
 — DR. WM. L. POTEAT, 
 
 President Wake Forest Col- 
 lege, Wake Forest, N. C. 
 
 69 
 
"I am very much pleased with it. As a matter 
 of fact I am so pleased with it that I would like 
 to put it in the hands of every one of our beginning 
 students in zoology. If you could supply me with 
 four dozen copies I am very sure they would help 
 our students very much indeed in getting hold of 
 the new idea of evolution and at the same time 
 retaining their fundamental religious beliefs." 
 
 —PROP. Z. P. METCALP, 
 
 Department of Zoology and 
 Entomology, State College, 
 Raleigh, N. C. 
 
 "I want to thank you for your very attractive 
 book, ''If Evolution Is True." " 
 
 — PREST. H. W. CHASE, 
 
 University of North Carolina, 
 Chapel Hill, N. C. 
 
 "It is a fair, broad and intelligent treatment of 
 the subject, and ought to do good. I am sorry 
 any of our people have gotten stirred up over the 
 matter of evolution, which is a simple thing. There 
 are certain facts which are accessible to everybody 
 who will give the time and thought to investigate 
 them. On these facts we rear the theory of evo- 
 lution. 
 
 "Men differ in the details of this theory, but 
 there is substantial agreement in the main lines. 
 Archaeologists study the remains of the Roman 
 Porum and the Athenian Acropolis, and dig up 
 columns, capitals, inscriptions, etc. These are 
 facts, which everybody can study if they have the 
 desire and the training. On these facts Archaeolo- 
 gists and architects rear theories as to the details 
 of the buildings, their restoration, etc., in the 
 
 70 
 
Forum or on tlie Acropolis. 
 
 "They do not agree wholly as to the details, but 
 an of us agree substantially in our views as to the 
 number of buildings, their sites, their size, and 
 their purpose. 
 
 "And anyway the dry-as-dust facts do not greatly 
 help us in the study of Roman or Greek life, his- 
 tory, philosophy. And so it is with evolution. As 
 you rightly point out, most of us haven't the time 
 and the training to investigate the facts on which 
 evolution is based, much less interpret them. I 
 can't see why our good friends who believe that 
 God started the world like a clock and doesn't have 
 to bother with it any more do not see the danger 
 in that view. On the contrary, if we believe in the 
 evolutionary view — always progress, always 
 change, always the forward and upward movement, 
 always the optimistic view — we must believe not 
 only that God started the process but that He is 
 in the midst of it, guiding it, molding it, shaping 
 it to His good end." 
 
 — DEAN A. H. PATTERSON, 
 School of Applied Science, 
 University of North Carolina, 
 Chapel Hill, N. C. 
 
 "I read it with real zest and with a resulting 
 feeling of satisfaction. 
 
 "Each of us, in his egotism, thinks that Dr. C. 
 Alphonso Smith is right when he repeats what has 
 so often been said before, that art consists in 
 another man's saying, doing, or writing, in finer 
 form or more apt terms that I could do it, that 
 which I have myself thought, conceived, or imag- 
 ined, without giving expression to it. Measured 
 
 71 
 
thus by my individual standard your book ranks 
 high. 
 
 "I am glad to see you rising up to a vision of, or 
 rather a feeling after (for that is all man is capa- 
 ble of), the infinity above and beyond what the 
 finite mind can conceive of as laws, natural or 
 divine. 
 
 "I wish therefore to congratulate you on your 
 very sane discussion. I think it is apt and should 
 be very useful." 
 
 — SIDNEY S. ALDERMAN, 
 Attorney at Law, 
 Greensboro, N. C. 
 
 OWIN G DU'NN. PRINTER. NEW BERN. N. C 
 
 72