http://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/systematictheology.

txt

species.... Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken,

we have no acceptable account of the origin of species." [78] Neither
has evolution been able successfully to cope with the problems
presented by the origin of man. It has not even succeeded in proving
the physical descent of man from the brute. J. A. Thomson, author of
The Outline of Science and a leading evolutionist, holds that man
really never was an animal, a fierce beastly looking creature, but that
the first man sprang suddenly, by a big leap, from the primate stock
into a human being. Much less has it been able to explain the psychical
side of man's life. The human soul, endowed with intelligence, self-
consciousness, freedom, conscience, and religious aspirations, remains
an unsolved enigma.

d. Theistic evolution is not tenable in the light of Scripture. Some

Christian scientists and theologians seek to harmonize the doctrine of
creation, as taught by Scripture, and the theory of evolution by
accepting what they call theistic evolution. It is a protest against
the attempt to eliminate God, and postulates Him as the almighty worker
back of the whole process of development. Evolution is regarded simply
as God's method of working in the development of nature. Theistic
evolution really amounts to this, that God created the world (the
cosmos) by a process of evolution, a process of natural development, in
which He does not miraculously intervene, except in cases where this is
absolutely necessary. It is willing to admit that the absolute
beginning of the world could only result from a direct creative
activity of God; and, if it can find no natural explanation, will also
grant a direct intervention of God in the origination of life and of
man. It has been hailed as Christian evolution, though there is not
necessarily anything Christian about it. Many, otherwise opposed to the
theory of evolution, have welcomed it, because it recognizes God in the
process and is supposed to be compatible with the Scriptural doctrine
of creation. Hence it is freely taught in churches and Sunday Schools.
As a matter of fact, however, it is a very dangerous hybrid. The name
is a contradiction in terms, for it is neither theism nor naturalism,
neither creation nor evolution in the accepted sense of the terms. And
it does not require a great deal of penetration to see that Dr.
Fairhurst is right in his conviction "that theistic evolution destroys
the Bible as the inspired book of authority as effectively as does
atheistic evolution." [79] Like naturalistic evolution it teaches that
it required millions of years to produce the present habitable world;
and that God did not create the various species of plants and animals,
and that, so that they produced their own kind; that man, at least on
his physical side, is a descendant of the brute and therefore began his
career on a low level; that there has been no fall in the Biblical
sense of the word, but only repeated lapses of men in their upward
course; that sin is only a weakness, resulting from man's animal
instincts and desires, and does not constitute guilt; that redemption
is brought about by the ever-increasing control of the higher element
in man over his lower propensities; that miracles do not occur, either
in the natural or in the spiritual world; that regeneration,
conversion, and sanctification are simply natural psychological
changes, and so on. In a word, it is a theory that is absolutely
subversive of Scripture truth.

Some Christian scholars of the present day feel that Bergson's theory
of Creative Evolution commends itself to those who do not want to leave
God out of consideration. This French philosopher assumes an élan vital
a vital impulse in the world, as the ground and animating principle of
all life. This vital principle does not spring from matter, but is
rather the originating cause of matter. It pervades matter, overcomes
its inertia and resistance by acting as a living force on that which is
essentially dying, and ever creates, not new material, but new
movements adapted to ends of its own, and thus creates very much as the
artist creates. It is directive and purposive and yet, though
conscious, does not work according to a preconceived plan, however that

110 de 556 9/9/2019 11:41 a. m.