Whenever Adventists in groups get to discussing questions of natural science and religion, sooner or later the question is raised, "What about that statement in the Testimonies which speaks of the amalgamation of man and beast?" I myself have been asked this question so repeatedly that, to save time and individual correspondence, I think it better to make a brief statement here. First let us have the quotation;
"Every species of animal which God created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."—"Spiritual Gifts," Vol. p. 75 (1864).
Without attempting to deal with all the interesting statements in this passage, I may be allowed to say a few words about the latter part, which I think is the portion most liable to be misunderstood. Let me rewrite the last sentence, adding just one word in brackets, and I believe the supposed difficulty will disappear almost of itself. "Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and [of] beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."
Under the guidance of Mendelism, modern genetics has shown us the methods by which new types of animals and plants seem to arise, namely, by hybridization, a word which is equivalent to the expression "amalgamation," as used by Mrs. E. G. White.
The latter term was in use a century or so ago for the same idea. Modern biologists have come to the conclusion that essentially all the really new types of life come into existence by crossing, or hybridization, using the latter term in its broadest meaning, as covering any kind of crossing between varieties, between "species," or between what are called "genera,"—for even intergenetic crossing has been done repeatedly, with resulting fertile offspring. The photographic reproduction of the grandson of a mule has been published in reliable scientific journals, though this would be only an interspecific hybrid, not an inter-genetic. But reliable records of the latter are published.
It is one of the canons of literary interpretation that we should impute good sense to the passage under consideration, and of two possible meanings we should impute to it the most sensible. Certainly, if we adopt a sympathetic attitude toward the passage under consideration, we will not adopt the view that man has hybridized with "almost endless varieties" of animals; though the latter view would be necessary in order to produce the "almost endless varieties of species" spoken of, if these are understood as the results of men hybridizing with animals. For one kind of cross will produce only one kind of hybrid; and the final outcome of any hybridization will always be limited to a very small circle of forms which will always be seen to be closely related. The "almost endless varieties of species" spoken of above could never be supposed to have resulted from one form (man) crossing with merely two or three or four other kinds.
Common sense tells us that we are shut up to the view that what was really meant is that there has been a vast amount of hybridizing among animals, and also among distinct types or kinds of men which the Lord desired to keep separate and distinct. If we can admit that the expression as printed in "Spiritual Gifts" is not as clearly worded as we might desire, this would clearly be the meaning, and no difficulty would arise. Surely this position is reasonable.
Someone may say that it would not take any special light from above to say that there has been much crossing among animals. But not so fast. Remember when this passage was written. Darwinism had just been sprung on the world. It is a safe guess that at that time, 1864, or five years after Darwin's "Origin of Species," Mrs. White had never heard the name of Darwin, least of all was she familiar with the discussion to which Darwin's book gave rise. At that day, all "orthodox" science in the entire civilized world held to a very extreme form of the "fixity" of species. Even up to 1900, when Mendelism appeared, the doctrine was strictly taught that there could really be no crossing of true "species." And this has been the fatuous stand taken by almost all opponents of Darwinism, a stand which is still maintained by most unscientific men in opposing evolution. And Adventists would very likely have also been in this untenable and quite impossible position, if it had not been for what Mrs. White wrote.
But all scientifically trained persons now know that this old idea of the absolute "fixity" of species is all nonsense. Hundreds of well-recognized "species" have been crossed, with resuiting fertile offspring. Perfectly fertile results have followed crossing what have long been regarded as distinct genera. I am not now saying that these specific or generic labels mean what they are commonly supposed to mean; I am simply recording facts well known to the scientific world.
From all this we see that what is stated in the passage under discussion is something which was considered completely out of harmony with science at the time it was written (about the middle of the nineteenth century), but in full accord with the more accurate and the more enlightened science of this fourth decade of the twentieth century. We must also remember that up until well after the middle of the nineteenth century, or during the career of Prof. Louis Agassiz, it was taught by many scientists that mankind had had a multiple origin; for Agassiz made at least three 'species" of mankind, just as evolutionists today make a "Neanderthal species," a "Piltdown species," etc., ad nauseam.
I acknowledge that what I have stated above is in some respects only my own private opinion, though I have reason to believe that these views are shared by those of our science teachers who are most entitled to judge of these matters. At any rate, I have not arrived at these conclusions hastily, for I have been kept busy answering queries on this subject for a quarter of a century. I consider it a great pity that reflections and doubts have been cast on this and other statements of Mrs. White, when a little more knowledge of the real facts would immediately have shown that what she was saying was right after all. I have had occasion to point out the genuine science at the basis of her statements about the burning of coal and oil underground, as well as about the way in which coal beds were formed, and in many other instances. In this respect it is most emphatically true, as Bacon says of philosophy, that a little science inclineth men's minds toward skepticism; but depth in science bringeth men's minds back again to religion.
George McCready Price
Berrien Springs, Mich.
