THE: AWIERICt,N t~I<TITl

LITERATURE

Popular Religion Leaflets

OF

=:IENCE AND RELIGION"SERIES

l;Iunlutinrt au~:fit. Ih:yan;1l1lAA. '~ EMERSON FOSDICK

Copies of this leaflet may besecured for distribution

at three cents eack.

c) (i .'~"< ) '.,;

'IFirst Impression

Chicago, September, 1922

InstittltlJ

Evqo. 'n; IInllOls

"SCIENCE AND RELIGION"

LEAFLETS

Bl. ':J t;3! P' "'~',:"",,'

','" /{-;1

EVOLUTI I) MR. DRYANBy

HARRY EMERSON FOSDICK

3

*This article appeared in New YorkTimes, Sunday, ,March 12.

The editor of The Times' has askedme to reply to Mr, Bryan's statementon "God and Evolution." I do so, ifonly to voice the sentiments of a largenumber of Christian people who inthe name of religion are quite 'as

, shocked as any scientist could he in

Jt.' the name of science at Mr. Bryan's1', sincere but appalling obscurantism.i,t .' So far as the scientific aspect of thei)' ' discussion is concerned, scientists mayt ' well be left to handle it. Suffice it to"l~ sa~ that when Mr. ~ryan reduc~s ev~­ili i lutlOn to a hypothesIs and then !dent!-:J- fies a hypothesis with a Hguess" he is

'i~l guilty of a sophistry SO shallow and,:W palpable that one wonders at his

'~ ~:~~i:Z:~ ~;:~~n~/~Pi~O~u:i~~~U~{,' investigation before or just reason af­

terwardto sustain it; it is a jeu

Harry Em­Theological

2

How Science Helps Our Faith. ShailerMathews.

Evolution and Mr. Bryan.erson Fosdick, UnionSeminary.

Evolution and the Bible. Edwin G.Conklin. Princeton University.

!farry Emerspn Fosdick,-the.-author ofthu. pamphlet, fS a~isting'Uished -preacher,teacher and theolog1an. He ,has been Pro;'lessor of Practica.l" Theology in' Union~heolQgical Seminary, New York 'CitySl1tCe, 1915. UP01~ -the recent .• union- of thre¢g~eat Presbytenan Churches in the same';fty, .he was chosen as, the preacher. "He1$ Widely known through hislittlebooks-·of which, ~The Manho.odofthe Master':and "The Mea1'ting of FaithJare,examples~

, . The rnstitut~, ui-lIes theco~oper~tion ofChrist~Ian people,_ sClentls.ts, educ....tof.S. I!1inisters, lay­men and ~tudentsmthe dlstnbutlon of its lik,;erature, ,eIther by cOlltribution of funds Qr,by,':'<pel'sonal efforts; ',',' " "',

d'esprit. But a hypothesis is a seri­ously proffered explanation of a dif~

ficult problem ventured when carefulinvestigation of facts points to it, re­tained as long as the discovered faotssustain it, and surrendered as soon asanother hypothesis enters the fieldwhich better explains the phenomenain question.

A Hypothesis

Every universally accepted scien­tific truth which we possess began asa hypothesis, is in a sense a hypothesisstill, and has become a hypothesistransformed into a settled convictionas the mass of accumulating evidenceleft no question as to its substantial,alidity. To call evolution, therefore,a guess is one thing; to tell the truthabout it is another, for to tell thetruth invol ves recognizing the tirelesspatience with which generations ofscientists in every appropriate field ofinquiry have been investigating alldiscoverable faots that bear upon the

4

problem of mutation of species, withsubstantial unanimity as to the resultsso far as belief in the hypothesis ofevolution is concerned. When Dar­win, after years of patient, unremit­ting study, ventured his hypothesis inexplanation of evolution-a hypothe­sis which was bound to be correctedand improved-one may say anythingelse one will about it except to ca11 ita "guess." That· is line one thingwhich it certainly was not. Today,the evolutionary hypothesis, aftermany years of pitiless attack andsearching investigation, is, as a whole,the most adequate explanation of thefacts with regard to the origin ofspecies that we have yet attained, andit was ne:ver- so solidly grounded as 1:-.is today. Dr. Osborne is making,surely, a safe statement when he saysthat 110 living naturalist, so far as heknows "differs as to the immutable,truth of evolution in the sense, of thecontinuous fitness of plants and ani­mals to their environment and the

5

ascent of all the extinct an<'. e'Xl>,m'g

forms of life, includirtg man,original· and single cellular state."

The Real Simation

When, therefore, Mr. Bryan"Neither Darwin· nor SU'J1Xlrtt,rshave been able to find auniverse to support their hyp01:hesis,it would be difficult to im,lgiIlement more obviouslybly mistaken. The realthat every fact on which im'esl:ig"tic)llhas ,been able to •lay .its. handsto confirm the hypothesis of iv()lution.There is no known factout against it. Eachfact fits into anit. So farit are cOIlce,rned.tronomymore solidly.

My reply, however,concerned thepeets Ofseems to beposition is.

substitute forwhen the Bible not only

tlotsupport Darwin's hypothesis,dir.ect'lv and expressly contradicts

What other interpretatiortofstatement is. possible except

the Bible is for Mr. Bryanaul:hohtati',e textbook in biology­

not.in astrono,..chemistry, or

science, a·rt,concern -ofwhatever Orte who is acquaint"d

of theologicalthis. At

arsenal of arguments against all sectsand sorts of atheist~, pagans, Jews,Turks, Tartars, Papists, Calvinists,Socinians, and Baptistsn

-; that it is"the source of all science and arts,including law, medicine, philosophy,and rhetoric," "the source and es­sence of all histories and of all pro­fessions, trades, and works," "an ex..hibition of all virtues and vices," and"the origin of all. consolation."

Luther and Bryan

One has supposed that the dayswhen such wild anchronisms couldpass muster as good theology wetepast, but 1\1r. Bryan is regalvaniz­ing into life that same outmoded ideaof what the Bible is, and proposes inthe twentieth century that we shalluse Genesis, which reflects the pr~-:"

scientific view of the Hebrew peoplecenturies before Christ, as' an au.;,thoritative textbook in science, beyondwhose conclusions we dare notgo.

Why, then, should Mr. Bryan com­plain because his attitude toward evo-

8

lution is compared . repeatedly, as, hesays it is, with the attitude of thetheological opponents of Copernicusand Galileo? On his own statement,the parallelism is complete. MartinLuther "Hacked Copernicus with thesame appeal which :Mjf. Bryan uses:He appealed to the Bible. He said:"People gave ear to 'ill1' upstart as~

trologer who strove to show that theearth revolves, not t·he heavens or thenrmament, the sun and -the moon.ViThoever wishes to appear clevermust devise some new system, whichof all systems is,of course, the verybest. This fool wishes to reverse theentire science of astronomy, but sa,..cred Scripture tells us that Joshuacommanded the sun to stand still, andnot the earth."

Nor was Martia Luther wrong ifthe Bible is indeed an authoritativetextbook in science. The. denial 6fthe Copernican astronomy with itsmoving earth can unquestionably befound in the Bible if one starts out touse the Bible that way-"The world

9

was flat and was foundedon an underlying sea (Psalm 136:6;Psalm 24: 1-2; Genesis 7: II ) ; it wasstationary; the heavens, like an up­turned howl, IIstrong as a molten mir­ror" (Job 37: 18; Genesis 1 :6-8;Isaiah 40 :22; Psalm I04:2), restedon the earth beneath (l\mos 9:6; Job26:II); the sun, moon, and stars·moved within this firmament of spe­cial pUrpose to illumine man (GenesisI "4-19) ; there was a sea above thesky, ,rthe waters which were above thefirmament" (Genesis 1:7; Psalm148:4) and through "the windows ofheaven" the rain came down (Genesis7 :1 I ; Psalm 78 :23) ; beneathwas mysterious Sheol wherethe shadowy dead (Isaiah 14 :9-Il) ;and all this had been made in six days,each of which had had a morningand _an evening, a short and measur~

able time before (Genesis I).o. . •

Are we to understand that thISMr. Bryan's science, that weteach this science in our schools,we ate stopped by divine rC1lelfltio,n

The Hebrew Universe

Indeed, as everybody knows whohas seriously studied the Bible, thatbook represents in its cosmology andits cosmogony the view of the physi­cal universe which everywhere ob­tained in the ancient Semitic world.

also is established, that it ~annot bemoved" (Psalm 93:1); "Who laid thefoundations of the earth, that· itshould not be moved forever" (Psalm104:5). Moreover, in those bygonedays, the people who were then usingMr. Bryan's method of argument didquote these ~assages as proof, andFather Inehofer felt so confident thathe cried, "The _opinion of the earth'smotion is of all heresies the mostabominable, the most pernicious, themost scandalous; the immovability ofthe earth is thrice sacred; _argumentagainst the immortality of the soul,the existence of God, and the incar­nation should be tolerated sooner thanan argument. to prove that the earthmoves."

10 II

from ever going beyDnd this sciencdYet this is exactly what Mr. Bryanwould. force us 1:D if with intel­lectual consistency he sbould carry outthe implications of his appeal to theBible against the scientific hypothesisof evolution in biology.

The Bible's Precious Truth.

One who is a teacher and preacherof religion raises his protest againstall this just because it does such grossinjustice to the Bible. There is nobook to compare with it. The worldnever needed more its fundamentalprinciples of life, its fully developedviews of God and man, its finest faithsand hopes and loves. When one readsart article like Mr. Bryan's One feels,not that the Bible is being defended,but· that it is being attacked. Is a'cello defended when insteadDf beingused for music it is advertised as .a. .good d1l1ner table? Mr. Bryan doesa similar disservice to rhe Bible when,instead of using it for what it is, themost noble, useful, inspiring· and, 111-

12

book of spiritualliie which wehave,the record of God's progressiveunfdding of his character and willfrom early primitive beginnings to thehigh noon in Christ, he sets it up forwhat it is not and never was meant tobee-a procrustean bed to whose infal­lible measurements all human thoughtmust be forever trimmed.

Origins and Values "-

The fundamental interest whichleads Mr. Bryan and others of hisschool to hate evolution is the fearthat it will depreciate the dignity ofman. Just what do they mean? Evenin the Book of Genesis God mademan out of the dust of the earth.Surely, that is low enough to startand evolution startSTIO lower. Solong as God is the Creative Power,Jwhat difference does.it make whetherout of the dust by sudden fiat or outof the dust by gradual process God

. brought man into being. Here manis and what he is he is. Were it de­cided that God had dropped him from,

the sky, he still wouldhe is. If it is decidedbrought him up by slowout of lower forms of life, hethe man he is,

The fact is that the processwhich man came to be upon theis a very important scientific pn,bl"m,but it is not a crucially irrlpo,rt,mtligious problem. Origins proveing in the realm of values. To allfolk of spiritual insight man, no mat­ter by what process he at first arrived,is the child of God, madeage, destined for his character.One 'could appeal directly toBryan he would wish toscientists. thrash outman's biological origin but inmeantime do not teach men thatGod did not make us by fiathave nothing a ' bestialThat is a

table thatChristian should be teachlllg

warm sy,np:a­which gives

anxious· concern~ Heisthe youth of the ,new

taught the doctrine of am"te'rialistic sc-iertce; may lose thatre.:.

faith in God and in the re.li-the spiritual life' on which

an, abiding civilization beHis fear is well gr,ou"de,d,

one closely as;;oc,at"dstudents of our colleges and uni­

Many of them arementally in chaos,

types of teachingwhich are hostile to

in the creative, reality

to

are,

effect which they produce, alike tosustained integrity of ~h"aracter, buoy­ancy, and hopefulness of life and pro­gress in society. But Mr. Bryan'sassociation of this pessimistic andmaterialistic teaching with the biolo"gical theory of evolution is only draw­ing a red herring across the red trail.The distinction between inspiring,spiritually minded teachers and dead­ening, irreligious teachers is not at thepoint of belief in evolution at all. Ourgreatest teachers, as well as our poor­est, those who are profoundly relig­iOlls as well as those who are scorn,;.fully irreligious, believe in eVOlution.The new biology has "0 more to dowith the difference between them thanthe new astronomy or the new chem­istry. If the hypothesis of evolutionwere smashed tomorrow, there wouldbe no more religiously minded scien"tists and no fewer irreligious ones.

The Heart of the ProblemThe real crux of the problem in

university circles is whether we afegoing to think of creative reality inphysical orin spiritual terms, and

16

that question cannot be met on thelines that Mr. Bryan has laid down.Indeed, the real enemies of the Chris­tian faith, .So far as our students afC

concerned,are not the evolutionarybiologists, but folk like Mr. Bryanwho insist on setting up artificial ad­hesion between Christianity and out­grown scientific opinions, and whoproclaim that we cannot have onewithout the other. The pity. is thatso many students will 'believe him and,finding it impossible to retain the out­grown scientific opinions, will give upChristianity in accordance with Mr.Bryan's insistence thaLthey must.

Quite as amazing as his views ofthe Bible is Mr. Bryan's view of theeffect of evolution upon man'sthought of God. If ever a topsy­turvy statement was made about· anymatter cap"ble of definitive informa"tioTI, Mr. Bryan1s statement deservesthat description, far it turns the truthupside down. He says: "The theisticevolutionist puts God so far awaythat he ceases to be a present influ­ence in the life * * * Why should we

17

want to imprison God in an impene­trable past? His is a living world.Why not a living God npon thethrone? Why not allow him ,to worknow I" But the effect of evolutionupon man's thought of God, as everyserious student of theology kno\vs,has been directly the opposite of whatMr. Bryan supposes. It was in theeighteenth century that men thoughtof God .as the vague, dim figure overthe crest of the first hill who gavethis universal toboggan its primevalshove and has !leen watching it slidingever since. It was in the eighteenthcentury that God, was thought of asthe absentee landlord who had builtthe house and left it~as the ship­wright who had built the, ship andthen turned it over to the master mar­iners, his natural laws. Such ideasof GOO are associated with eighteenthcentury Deism, but the nineteenthcentury's most characteristic thoughtof God was in terms of immanence­God here in this world, the life of allthat lives, the sustaining energy of allthat lives, as our spirits are in our

18

Dodies. permeating, vitalizing, direct­

ing all.CadIs N'?t a Carpenter

The idea of evolution was one ofthe great factors in this most profit­able change. In a world nal1ed to­gether like a box, God, the creator,had been thought of as a carpenterwho created the universe long ago;

• 'n a world growing like a tree,now, 1 • dever more putting out new footsanbranches, God has more and .~orebeen seen as the indwelling sptrltnallife. Consider that bright ~ight of

. t th century ChrIstlamty,nme een .. fHenry Drummond, the colTlpamon 0

D. L.Moody in his evangehstIc tour,'.He believed in evolution. w,~at dIdit do to his thought of God. Justwhat it has done to the thought ofmultitudes.' Said, Drummond:. "IfGod appears periodicaIly he dIsap­pears periodically. If he comes. uponthe scen-e at. special Crises, he 15 ab­;ent from the scene in the intervals.Whether is all·God or occasional-Godthe nobler theory? Positively the

19

idea of an immanent God, which isthe God of evolution, is infinitelygrander than the occasional wonder­worker who is the GDd of an oldtheology."

Mr. Bryan proposes, then, that in­stead of entering into this rich heri­tage \\'here ancient faith, floweringout in new \\'orld views, grows richerwith the pas3ing centuries, we shallrun ourselves into his mold of mediae­valism. He proposes, too, that hisspecial form of mediaevalism shall bemade auth01;itative by the state, pro,,:mulgated as the only teaching allowedin the schools. Surely, we can prom­ise him a long, long road to travelbefore he plunges the educational sys­tem of this country into such incred­ible folly, and if he does succeed inarollsing areal 'battle over the issuevl"e can prom'ise him also that just asearnestly as the scientists will fightagainst _him in fhe name of scientificfreedom of investigation, so will mul':'titudes of Christians fight against himin the name of their religion and theirGod.

20

The A"'erican Institute of SacredLiteratw'e £s mt organization tor thepro",otion of popular study of theBible and religl:on. Its courses as­swne the accepted results of scholar­ship of the cOllstructive type. Itspurpose is, through cultivating intel­ligent study) to increase th.e function­ing power of religion in the life oftoday. Each. of its Outline StudyCourses, ind·ud£ng ]vew Testament,Old Testament and Theology, pro­vides for fifty to one hundred hoursof systematic work in a year. Itspublication, THE INSTITUTE, issues all­

lluall)1 a new course in monthly form.Subject for '922-3, "The Truth aboutthe Bible." These togeit"r with itsprofessional reading courses, travelinglibraries and correspondence coursesyearly serve six thousand people intheir own homes. Address THE

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF SACRED LIT­

ERATT,JRE, HYDE PARK, CHICAGO, ILL.

HOME STUDYBlBLE COURSES(50 cents each)

Jesus of Nazareth, How He Thought, Lived,Worked and Achieved, by Ernest D. Burton.

A -course based upon, the Gospels ofMatthew, Mark, and Luke, the aim of whichis to enable the student to see Jesus living,working among men of his day, in his com­mon intercourse with all kinds of, people,inall those situations where the things thatwere done or said reflected in some definitemeasure the character of Jesus.

Pau~ by Eagar J. Goodspeed. ~

A course in which through the Book of Actsand the letters of Paul, the greatest of pio­neers in Christian living and Christian service,is seen as dearly as is Jesus in the (ourseabove. '

Next to that of Jesus Christ, "there is nolife in human history the aopreciation of whichmore richly rewards the student of the Bibleor religious history.

The Origin and Teaching. of the' New Testa­ment Books, by Ernest D. Burton and FredMerrifield.

A rapid survey of the books of the NewTestament, so far as possible in chronologicalorder, the aim being to learn. the hist>oricaloccasion and the particular message of' eachbook

The Realities of the Christian' Reiigioll; byCarald B. Smith and Theodore G. Soares;

Studies in personal exp,erience, inspiration.revelation, the. meaning of God, the meaningof salvation, the future hope.

.?i?:,':'::-:-)

ge:OiJesus to Our Modern Life, byathews.

efof~studiesgivitig first the !religionr.::hrist.and then' the application of his

9!1'spdnciples to the family, the state, thetl.andother .. phases of organized society¢speeiallygood course for men's classes.

Ia.··Testament·· BOOKS, Their Origin' and'~uBValues for Today, by Georgia L.berlliL

iiryei'0fall ofthe Old Testament Books-r:Qxima,tely the order of their origin,with~i,~tappreciation of those realiti.es andY'hid~make the Old Testament a living

in)hfireligion of the modern Ohristian.

]'4es~ag~of the Prophets to the Twen-."'<:':":":g~nturYJ, by.Herbert L. Willett.

'~e"prOp?etshave given us the heart of_,-'PNTestament. . Dr. Willett's treatment;~<lmis,vivid ·and inspiring, and full of

"()ns>concerning the moral issu,es ofntitnss;

Book of Revelation, by Shirley J. Case.

e'c1:Jistorica-l period. out of which the hookisc.ontinuallykept before the student as'ackground 'ofits visions and ideals...... sOIllething .of its mystical qualityJ}r~ce,ss; but becomes'an intensely in­g-'.c:document reflecting one hundred

:; ..'Qf::C:hristian experience and coming.'.\ the,:early·.days of persecuted ChristiaIis~

;'~m¥~anh:lIltitute of -Sacred Literature~H:yde Park, ·.Chicago, III;