Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

of descent, but do not hesitate to say that they cannot speak with any assurance of its
method of operation. When Darwin published his works, it was thought that the key to
the process was found at last, but in course of time it was found that the key did not fit
the lock. Darwin truly said that his theory depended entirely on the possibility of
transmitting acquired characteristics, and it soon became one of the corner-stones of
Weismann’s biological theory that acquired characteristics are not inherited. His opinion
received abundant confirmation by the later study of genetics. On the basis of the
assumed transmission of acquired characteristics, Darwin spoke with great assurance of
the transmutation of species and envisaged a continuous line of development from the
primordial cell to man; but the experiments of De Vries, Mendel, and others tended to
discredit his view. The gradual and imperceptible changes of Darwin made place for the
sudden and unexpected mutations of De Vries. While Darwin assumed endless
variation in several directions, Mendel pointed out that the variations or mutations
never take the organism outside of the species and are subject to a definite law. And
modern cytology in its study of the cell, with its genes and chromosones as the carriers
of the inherited characters, confirmed this idea. The so-called new species of the
evolutionists were proved to be no true species at all, but only varietal species, that is
varieties of the same species. Nordenskioeld in his History of Biology quotes the
following sentence from a popular account of the results of heredity research, as
reflecting the true state of affairs: “For the very reason of the great number of facts that
modern heredity-research has brought to light, chaos prevails at present in regard to the
views on the formation of species,” p. 613. Prominent evolutionists now frankly admit
that the origin of species is a complete mystery to them. And as long as that is so, there
is not much chance of their explaining the origin of man.
Darwin in his attempt to prove the descent of man from a species of anthropoid
apes relied on (1) the argument from the structural similarity between man and the
higher animals; (2) the embryological argument; and (3) the argument from
rudimentary organs. To these three were added later on, (4) the argument derived from
blood tests; and (5) the palaeontological argument. But none of these arguments furnish
the desired proof. The argument from structural likeness unwarrantably assumes that
the similarity can be explained in only one way. Yet it can very well be accounted for by
the assumption that God in creating the animal world made certain typical forms basic
throughout, so as to have unity in variety, just as a great musician builds up his mighty
composition on a single theme, which is repeated time and again, and at each repetition
introduces new variations. The principle of preformation gives an adequate explanation
of the similarities under consideration. The embryological similarity, such as it is, can be
201