The Church, the Schools and Evolution

by J. E. Conant

It is quite true that there are many who say they believe the Bible and accept evolution also. But how those who are mentally sound and capable of logical consistency can accept two mutually exclusive propositions at the same time, it is impossible to understand. We will be compelled to let those who say they accept both the Bible and evolution explain how they do it—if they can! But meantime, if we take pains to make careful inquiry of such people, we shall find that in every case where logical and consistent thinking has any meaning whatever, a choice has been made between the Bible as an inerrant and infallible Book and the theory of evolution. It is quite possible for a man to hold the “scientific” or “historical” attitude toward the Bible, which makes it a human book marred by many errors, and believe in evolution at the same time; but the man who holds that attitude toward the Bible does not believe it at all! No one can accept the theory of evolution and the doctrine of an inerrant Bible at the same time.

And yet the attempt is being very skilfully made by many leaders in the Schools today to camouflage this impossibility. A very recent article by Dr. Shailer Mathews on “Christ and Education” is a typical illustration.

In the midst of the article Dr. Mathews frankly indicates his acceptance of evolution, because of which, he says, “the meaning of religion was enlarged” for him. Then he leaves the impression with the reader [p 81] that the conclusions of modern science are to be taken without question, and also that our faith in Christ and the Bible are to be brought into harmony with these conclusions. That is, our faith must combine an acceptance of evolution with whatever attitude toward Christ and the Scriptures the evolutionary philosophy makes possible. This puts reason above Revelation and makes the scientific realm primary in its relation to the spiritual. The reader can judge, in the light of our previous thinking, whether this procedure is scientific or not.

Then in speaking of the fact that the educated man as truly as the ignorant man needs the saving power of Christ, he says: But he must be saved as an educated man and not as an ignorant man. He cannot be forced to give up what he knows to be real. If he be told that Christian loyalty involves the abandonment of the assured results and methods of scientific investigation, he will refuse such loyalty.

This implied charge is later on in the article made specific when he says that some schools "are refusing to let their students know the results of scientific investigation for fear lest such knowledge will ruin certain theological beliefs for which the schools stand"—a method he describes as putting a premium upon ignorance as a prerequisite for faith.

The reader knows as well as the writer that the whole attitude of the Christian Church, and therefore of true Christian education, challenges those words and hurls them back at their author for proof. [p 82] Both the implied and the direct accusations are utterly without foundation. Indeed, the thing Dr. Mathews charges is the one thing true Christian education does not do.

When did the Church ever try to force a man, educated or ignorant, to give up what he knows to be facts in order to become a Christian? When was a man ever asked by Christian schools to choose between the assured results and methods of scientific investigation and loyalty to Christ? When has that institution which, above all others, has fought ignorance and fostered true scientific investigation used a method that put a premium on ignorance as a prerequisite for faith?

It is not facts that the Church either fears or refuses to accept, but such an interpretation of them by evolutionists and rationalists as to deny the scientific accuracy and therefore the inerrancy of the Word of God. It is altogether beside the truth to intimate that the Church is fostering an education that has to withhold assured scientific facts for fear their knowledge would ruin faith in any theological beliefs whatever “for which the schools stand.” It is not the knowledge of scientific facts that true Christian schools ever withhold, but such theories and speculations concerning their meaning as would destroy the schools as Christian institutions if the logic of them were followed to the end. And as for the Church ever abandoning the assured results and methods of scientific investigation, this is precisely the thing the Church is fighting to maintain against the efforts of evolutionists and rationalists. It is rather the Schools that have been abandoning scientific methods of investigation, [p 83] thereby reaching “assured results” that invalidate not only the doctrine of an inerrant Bible, but every other fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures. Indeed, this is the very reason why the controversy between the Church and the Schools is now on, and Dr. Mathews’ article is typical of the attempts that are being made to make it appear that faith in evolution and the Bible can be combined—an attempt toward which all believers in an infallible Book will always be irreconcilable.

And this irreconcilable attitude is not without reason, but for the perfectly valid reason that the one who accepts evolution as a fact is utterly unscientific. For in the first place he accepts unproven assumptions and rationalistic speculations as demonstrated facts. And, in the next place, he thereby forces human interpretations of scientific facts to contradict the divinely verified doctrines of the Bible, thus thrusting confusion and contradiction between realms of truth which are in perfect harmony. And, still further, he interprets the Bible in the light(?) not simply of science but even of a false science, and thus compels unproven hypotheses to deny the truthfulness of the scientific and historical references of the Bible, thereby forcing into primacy a realm of truth that is not primary. And all of this because he refuses to follow the formula of the spiritual Textbook and put faith above reason and the Bible above science in his approach to truth. How can a man follow such methods and yet imagine that he is scientific?

One more thing remains to be said before this argument is completed. We started out with an unproven, though self-evident premise. Turn back to the very [p 84] first paragraph in the book and you will find that the falsity of the pantheistic theory was assumed but not proved. Its falsity was assumed on grounds that have come to light as the argument has proceeded, and that might easily be turned to account now as conclusive proofs. For example, to refer to one of them, the self-evident distinction between the realm which contains the Creator and that which contains His creation science proves to be a real divergence in kind by being compelled to cease investigation with scientific apparatus the moment the boundary line of the spiritual realm is reached. And if there is as real a distinction between God and His creation as this indicates, the doctrines of pantheism are impossible.