The sinfulness of sin is invariably hidden to a greater or lesser degree from the perception of him who accepts the theory of organic evolution. Even though he considers that a Creator has begun or even directed the course of evolution, his assumption that man has battled his way upward and finally far surpassed his brother brutes, unconsciously attaches a tin halo above all man's accomplishments, be they good or bad. This imaginary achievement of development gives rise, if not to conscious, at least to subconscious, excuses for sin, and leads to the glorification of the philosophies of man.
Such a feeling of self-sufficiency, coupled with disbelief in the truthfulness of the Scriptures, has led some men on to conclusions with relation to the origin of sin and man's dependence upon a higher power which are so impious as to shock our Very souls. The philosophies developed by evolutionists are illustrated in an extreme case by the writings of one who was early fascinated by the work of Darwin and Spencer, and who applied the principles of evolution to philosophy. We find belief in evolution ripening into such utterances as the following:
"We do not find that evil has been interpolated into the universe from without ; we find that, on the contrary, it is an indispensable part of the dramatic whole. God is the creator of evil, and from the eternal scheme of things diabolism is forever excluded. Ormuzd and Ahriman have had their day and perished, along with the doctrine of special creation and other fancies of the untutored mind.
"From our present standpoint we may fairly ask, What would have been the worth of that primitive innocence portrayed in the myth of the Garden of Eden, had it ever been realized in the life of men? What would have been the moral value or significance of a race of human beings ignorant of sin, and doing beneficent acts with no more consciousness or volition than the deftly contrived machine that picks up raw material at one end, and turns out some finished product at the other ? Clearly, for strong and resolute men and women, an Eden would be at best but a fool's paradise."—John Fiske, quoted in "Elbert Hubbard's Scrap Book," p. 36.
Such self-sufficiency as these statements portray equips its possessor forthright to become a mouthpiece of the father of falsehoods. The reader is at once struck with the pathos of the situation in which a child of the dust rises to speak haughtily against the Word of his Creator and Sustainer.
The very impiety of these bold outgrowths of evolutionary philosophy serves to deter serious-minded searchers for truth from accepting the theory of evolution. However, acting to offset these more repulsive developments of the theory is the continuously applied, subtle evolutionary indoctrination in all academic fields which unconsciously prepares the student for open acceptance of the unproved theory. Even the spiritual advisers of our modern world quite unanimously strain the statements of Scripture, in an endeavor to present a picture of harmony between the teachings of the Bible and the tales of evolutionary scientists. Naturally the sinfulness of sin is dimmed in the minds of both pastor and parishioner, and the occupants of the Sunday pews too frequently hear an explanation of why man sins, instead of a clear presentation of the potentially fatal separation from God which sin indicates.
Our day is often thought of as one in which there is an attempted compromise between science and religion. However, in actuality it is found that the scientists stand pat in their theories of evolution, while the clergy have attempted to bend the statements of Scripture to fit the views of science. The "compromise" is definitely one-sided. In such a time as this, it is deeply refreshing to read the following quotation from the Western Recorder, in a recent number of the Baptist Watchman-Examiner under the title, "Evolutionist's Notion of Sin :"
"Advocates of the evolutionary theory regard sin as a remnant of the animal nature in man. They do not believe the Genesis teaching about the fall of man ; speak of an 'ascent of man.' They even discover this mythical ascent in the fall, and call it 'a fall upward. This idea is directly opposite to conscience, to experience, and to Bible teaching. The teaching of Scripture is that sin is 'what ought not to be.' And this is the overwhelming testimony of mankind in every age. All brute animals are found to be in harmony with their environment, and all live according to the laws of their nature. But man does not so live, which he would do if he were only a high brute beast. Man is utterly out of harmony with his environment. He has a moral nature for which the material environment cannot prescribe bounds. We find no moral bounds for his moral nature other than God.
"The essence of man's sin is that it places him out of harmony with God rather than with his material environment. Therefore man's sin was brought about by some moral catastrophe that put him out of touch with God. But that 'falling out' was not a fall upward, or an emergence from animality. It was a terrible lapse from innocence to sin, and rebellion even, as set forth in the Holy Scriptures. This is attested not only by the Scriptures and Christian believers, but by the mass mind of all humanity even while they struggle without self-competency to conquer the sin in which mankind finds itself involved.
"The evolutionist's notion of sin is vetoed by common sense as well as by divine revelation. Yet it is an essential part of the groundwork of what today passes as modern rationalism, or man's self-competency to deal with God apart from Christ and sin. And it is paralyzing more and more the thought and faith of present-day Christendom. Conviction of sin is in small evidence in those who join our churches today. Evolutionary philosophy has deadened the sense of sin. May Baptists shun this folly !"—Sept. 4, 1941.
The author of this paragraph has not only given a timely warning which can be as profitable to Adventists as to Baptists in regard to the paralyzing effects of modern rationalism, hut he has also directed the reader's mind to one of the proofs in the natural world that man has not evolved from beasts. Regardless of how high a brute beast man might be conceived of being, if he were a product of evolution, he would fit harmoniously into his environment. Development under the control of natural law could produce no other type of creature. But in actuality man is possessed of a moral nature "for which the material environment cannot prescribe bounds." He is not a creature equipped with instincts which direct him unerringly in all the relationships of his life. Instincts do not function in the moral realm. Thus, in the matter of adaptation to environment, a great gulf exists here between him and the beasts.
Man is conscious of a higher power and "ceaselessly struggles without self-competency to conquer sin." The beasts, by contrast, are amply adapted to their environments. The only reasonable explanation of this actuality is that man was the only organism that was formed to be subject directly to God. Certainly the Genesis statement of origins explains this fact much more satisfactorily than does the theory of evolution. Man only was formed in the image of God. All the good that man achieves is through his efforts by the grace of God and not by the self-development of a superior brute beast. The consciousness of the fact of man's noble origin helps to keep his soul awake to the awful sinfulness of sin.
