FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213  
214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   >>  
ery_ faculty of man's nature, and the intellect is not (any more than we should _a priori_ expect it to be) exempted from taking part in the probationary trial. A moral element enters into the acceptance of that system. And so with natural religion--with those ideas of the supernatural, viz. God, Creation, and Morality, which are anterior to revelation and repose upon reason. Here again it evidently has not been the intention of the Creator to make the evidence of His existence so plain that its non-recognition would be the mark of intellectual incapacity. {270} Conviction, as to theism, is not forced upon men as is the conviction of the existence of the sun at noon-day.[286] A moral element enters also here, and the analogy there is in this respect between Christianity and theism speaks eloquently of their primary derivation from one common author. Thus we might expect that it would be a vain task to seek anywhere in nature for evidence of Divine action, such that no one could sanely deny it. God will not allow Himself to be caught at the bottom of any man's crucible, or yield Himself to the experiments of gross-minded and irreverent inquirers. The natural, like the supernatural, revelation appeals to _the whole_ of man's mental nature and not to the _reason alone_.[287] None, therefore, need feel disappointed that evidence of the direct action of the first cause in merely natural phenomena ever eludes our grasp; for assuredly those same phenomena will ever remain fundamentally inexplicable by physical science alone. There being then nothing in either authority or reason which makes "evolution" repugnant to Christianity, is there anything in the Christian doctrine of "Creation" which is repugnant to the theory of "evolution"? Enough has been said as to the distinction between absolute and derivative "creation." It remains to consider the successive "evolution" (Darwinian and other) of "specific forms," in a theological light. As to what "evolution" is, we cannot of course hope to explain it completely, but it may be enough to define it as the manifestation to the intellect, by means of sensible impressions, of some ideal entity (power, principle, nature, or activity) which before that manifestation was in{271} a latent, unrealized, and merely "potential" state--a state that is capable of becoming realized, actual, or manifest, the requisite conditions being supplied. "Specific forms," kinds or sp
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213  
214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   >>  



Top keywords:

evolution

 

nature

 

reason

 

natural

 

evidence

 

revelation

 

repugnant

 

Himself

 

theism

 

Creation


action

 

existence

 

manifestation

 
Christianity
 

supernatural

 

element

 
expect
 
phenomena
 

enters

 

intellect


disappointed

 

Christian

 
theory
 

distinction

 

absolute

 

direct

 

Enough

 

derivative

 

doctrine

 

physical


assuredly

 

remain

 

creation

 

inexplicable

 

science

 

fundamentally

 

authority

 

eludes

 

latent

 

unrealized


activity

 

entity

 

principle

 
potential
 

capable

 

supplied

 

Specific

 

conditions

 
requisite
 
realized