Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

supposition or statement that it can be done, and is true, is certainly incorrect. It is
certainly misleading and unspeakably pernicious to put forward in popular magazines
or other publications read by children pictures of gorillas or chimpanzees labelled
‘Man’s cousin’ or ‘Man’s nearest relative,’ or to publish perfectly imaginary and
grotesque pictures of a supposed ‘Java man’ with brutish face as an ancestor of modern
man, as is occasionally done. Those who do such things are guilty of ignorance or
deliberate mis-representation. Neither is it justifiable for preachers in the pulpit to tell
their congregations that there is general agreement among scientific men as to the
evolutionary origin of Man from an animal ancestor.” 3 But the body of man does not
even present the greatest difficulties to the evolutionist. These arise from the
consideration of the spiritual element in man, or what is usually called “the origin of
mind.” It is at this point that his helplessness becomes most painfully apparent. In spite
of all his attempts, he has signally failed to give a plausible explanation of the origin of
the human mind, or intelligence (progressiveness), language, conscience, and religion.
This might be pointed out in detail, but we do not deem it necessary. There are many
who, like Dennert and Batison, still profess to believe in the doctrine of descent, but
disown the Darwinian method of evolution and regard it as a well-nigh complete
failure. Yet they know of no other method which might take its place. This means that
for them evolution has ceased to be a science, and has become once more a mere
philosophical theory. Batison said: “We read his (Darwin’s) scheme of evolution as we
would those of Lucretius or of Lamarck. . . . We are just about where Boyle was in the
seventeenth century.” The testimony of Dr. D. H. Scott is very similar. In a presidential
address before the British Association for the Advancement of Science he made the
following statements: “All is again in the melting-pot. . . . Is evolution, then, not a
scientifically established fact? No, it is not . . . It is an act of faith — because there is no
alternative.” Creation, of course, is not to be thought of. He further said that there is in
natural science “a return to pre-Darwinian chaos.” Dr. Fleischmann of Erlangen writes:
“The Darwinian theory has not a single fact to support it . . . is purely the product of the
imagination.” Even stronger is the assertion of Dr. B. Kidd: “Darwinism is a compound
of astonishing presumption and incomparable ignorance.” 4 Such scientists as Fleming,
Dawson, Kelly, and Price do not hesitate to reject the theory of evolution and to accept
the doctrine of creation. Respecting the origin of man, Sir William Dawson says: “I
know nothing about the origin of man, except what I am told in the Scripture — that
God created him. I do not know anything more than that, and I do not know of anyone
3 The Origin of Mankind, p. 75.
4 Quotations taken from Zerbe, Christianity and False Evolution, pp. 271f.
203