|
|
|
Error that is taught in a bold and open manner never does as much harm as that
which is spread in an insidious manner. When error is openly proclaimed and
argued upon whatever seeming proof and merit it has to sustain it, then we can
deal with it according to its deserts — weigh its evidence, expose the
fallacy of its arguments, and stop its harmful work.
But when error can create the impression that it must work in secret, because its opponents will use force to stop its progress; that they are afraid to meet it in a fair contest; and that they, therefore, take unfair advantage and try to keep people in ignorance by legislating against the spread of light, right then that error is going to spread prodigiously. Evil propaganda, for this reason, always assumes to be feared, evaded, inhibited, and proscribed, even when such is not the truth. The propagandist likes nothing better than to obliquely refer to his error and clearly imply that if he were only permitted to do so he could produce overwhelming facts to prove his contention; whereas, if he were challenged to bring forth those facts and put to the test, his facts would prove to be nil. We have a fine example of this insidious method in the hue and cry that is raised about "academic freedom." The teachers who are protesting against any interference with their work of destroying the faith and corrupting the morals of our children are making the most of this opportunity. They represent themselves as educated, and their opponents as ignorant. They pose as martyrs in the cause of enlightened thinking and represent their opponents as fossilized ignoramuses who are retarding progress, hindering education, and holding back from the young people truth that has been in modern times discovered and demonstrated! That type of propagandist among our teachers — it matters not what part of the world he is in — will never lose an opportunity to refer to Tennessee's antievolution law as an example of just what he is talking about. And he will point to the Scopes trial as the boldest and most "shameful" stand that ignorance, prejudice, and religious fanaticism have made against education in modern times! One would think that the Tennessee law applied to the whole world and that it prohibited the teaching of science in any school! But it did not prohibit the teaching of any branch of science in any school, not even the State schools of Tennessee. The theory of evolution is not science, and there is not one demonstrated fact or truth that we cannot accept and teach while rejecting the theory of organic evolution. I boldly challenge a denial of this statement! Let propagandists take notice. It is not the anti-evolutionists that fear the light and refuse an honest investigation. It is the evolutionary crowd. They will not attempt to defend the theory in a fair investigation. They will not try to prove the vital points of the theory, such as the origin of matter, the origin of species, and the development of the organs of the body. They refer to certain similarities in men and animals, point out certain natural adaptations, talk about some supposedly useless organs of the body, and then with an air of finality they say, "That proves it. Nobody but an ignoramus will deny this." They beg the question. They scoff at their opponents and assume an air of superior knowledge and try to create the impression that their opponents are not worthy of attention. They will never refer their students to any book that opposes evolution. In fact, it is doubtful if such books can be found in college libraries. If they are there, the students will never be advised to read them. The most unfair and unworthy fact in their whole behaviour is that they do their teaching to uninformed and immature youth of our land. I recently engaged in a conversation with a young lady teacher who, although she claims to be a member of the body of Christ, manifested a sneering attitude toward those who oppose the teaching of the theory of evolution. She betrayed a woeful ignorance of that theory, and yet she felt that she is much wiser than any poor "ignoramus" who would dare question the precious theory. In short, she manifested the usual disposition and betrayed the usual ignorance of those who think they are the only ones who know anything about it. When I boldly declared myself against the theory and stopped her on some of her assertions, she asked, "Well, what do you expect science to do? Just fold its hands and quit?" That is what they all say. They think that the theory of evolution is science. They think it is the sum of all science. I showed that the theory of evolution is not science, but a mere hypothesis put forth by scientists in an effort to explain the phenomena of life. I confounded her, but I did not convince her. She is gone. I was not surprised when I learned that she does not take any interest in the church. In the course of our conversation, the young lady informed me in a very patronizing air that "evolutionists do not teach that man is descended from the monkey." That is what ignorant people think they teach, but they do not, she told me. Again, I was compelled to show the young lady that this is only a dodge put forth by propagandists. Evolutionists do teach that man came up through the monkey stage, and they profess to have found the remains of the "intermediate" beings or "missing links." They all agree that man did not descend from any existing species of monkey — that none of the monkeys we have today are our ancestors, but that they are our brothers — that they came from the same stock from which we came. But the young lady was ignorant on this point, and she felt very superior because she could tell folks that evolution does not make man the offspring of a monkey. But that is a common bromide. The young lady declared also that teachers in our schools do not teach evolution. "They just present the facts and let the students draw their own conclusions," she told me. I asked, "What facts?" I pressed her to name some facts that would force a conclusion in favor of evolution. But she could not think of any facts. I helped her out by telling her the things that evolutionists use to justify their inferences. I pointed out to her, however, that these things are not proofs. But again, I did not convince her. Although I was holding a meeting in her town, I do not think she heard me preach again after that conversation. She no doubt felt that she could not waste her time listening to a man who is so ignorant as to deny or question the theory of evolution. |