Basic HTML Version
Febrúacy, 1970
JULIAN HUXLEY:
"For my own
part, the sense of spiritual re/ief
which comes from rejecting the
idea of God as a supernatura l
being is enormous."
of recent times. "Practically all enlight–
ened people havc come to accept the
idea of man's origin by descent from
lower animals, even though they may be
quite ignorant of the evidence for it or
the stages in the slow progression from
simple begionings to mankind's present
estate" (James H. McGregor,
Gmerctl
Anthropology).
And this: "Never again can a ma–
jority
of tbe best-informed minds of
any advanccd culture give support or
countenance to a belief in the super–
natural"
(The UnleaJhing
of
E~·olll
tionary Tho11ght,
by Osear Riddle).
T bé
PLArN TRUTH
Wide
World Photo
The same author also said, "Always
iocomplete, scieoce has oow advanced
far enough to make aoy imaginable
view of the supernatural unacceptable to
a high proportion of the best·informed
minds."
Is this because science has carefully
weighed the "supernatural," and tbe
BI.BLE account of creation, and found it
wanting? No. Few, if any, have se–
ríously looked into it.
I do not ímply tradítional theology,
nor even the most commonly accepted
relígíoos of the day, but the actual state·
ments of Genesis itself! Perhaps sorne
assume scientists have
111rned
to evolu–
tion AFTER they carefully entertained
the possíbil'ity of special creation, and
found it lacking in sorne point?
Not so. The whole APPROACH to tbe
45
study was preconditioned to OMIT the
idea of special creation.
Notice. "In science one should
NEVER accept a metaphysical ex·
planation if a physical explanation is
possible, or indeed,
conreivab/e" (TbiJ
View of Life,
p. 200, George Gaylord
Simpson).
When applying this reasoning to lab–
oratory experiments in, say, explosives,
it would appear good practica! advice.
But when applying such suggestions to
origim,
to those arcas which science
ADMITS
lie o!llside scieuce,
it seems an
unreasonable approach. Time and again,
in these articles, we have shown how
scientists admit the most
bct.sic
questions
confronting evolution lic OUTS!DE the
realm of scieoce.
Y
et, even though re–
duced to conjecturc, gucsswork, and
imagination, many seem bent upon
FORCINC a "scientilic" condusion rather
than a "metaphysical" one, EVEN WHEN
A METAPHYSICAL ONE WOULD SUIT THE
KNOWN FAC.TS MORE EASILY THAN AN
ASSO
M
ED POSTll LATE!
Another of the acknowledged greats
of evolutioo, Julian Huxley, said,
"Our
faith
in the idea of evolution depends
on our reluctancc to accept the antago–
nistic doctrine of spccial creat ion"
(Dogmct of
Evolt~lion,
p.
304).
But is faith, even according to the
Bible definition, based upon one's ad–
mitted UNWILLINCN !:SS to accept any
other alternative? The Bible insists faith
is based ON ASSURANCE (Heb. 11:1) ,
on the
convictíon
of the believer in prac–
tica! FACT, not empty guesswork, Faith
which is only assumption, based on
gucsses, is
not
faitb, but vague hope.
Following are a few poignant quota–
tions from Julian HLLxley- which have
oever beco retracted, to my knowledge.
"I think we can dismiss enti rely al! idea
of a supernatural designcr being respon–
sible for tbe evolutionary process," he
said, thus refuting the claims of sorne
few who ding to "theistic evolution."
Remember, even the "authorities" of
the evolutionary world
1bemse/ves
do
not attempt to sit astride the fence of
evolution and the first chapter of Gen–
esis. They state there are
only
the two
alternatives - that it is utterly impos–
sible to believe both. And
in
this, they
are correct.
Mr. Huxley also said, "God has been