Literal or Natural Interpretation of the Bible
Divine Design and Purpose in Nature
A Young Earth
A Universal Noachian Flood
Christ as God and Man, Only Savior
The Bible-Science Newsletter was published by the Bible-Science Association, Inc.
-- Rev. Walter Lang, Editor; Caldwell, Idaho
Many Groups Fighting for Creation
As the work of the Bible-Science Association becomes better known it is becoming more and more evident that it is helping to be a coordinating force for the many groups fighting for creation. Also more and more contact is being made between the various groups in this field and the Bible-Science Association. Handling the mail is becoming a problem.
We have heard from B. Gorm Rasmusen, editor of "Natural Science" and "Kosmik Energy." This comes out of Copenhagen, Denmark. Their material is sent to 1,297 universities and institutions of science in all parts of the world, to 251 gymnasia in Scandinavia, to 225 high school teachers in Denmark, to 150 students at the university of Copenhagen. It is exchanged with 63 universities, museums, and societies of science.
Ernest S. Booth of Escondido, Calif., publisher of the "Outdoor Pictures," with beautiful nature slides, is an ardent supporter of creationism. He has written a high school biology text from the creation viewpoint entitled "Biology, the Story of Life." He also produces motion pictures.
The Creation Research Society continues to do remarkable work in demonstrating the scientific superiority of creationism. Membership in this group is $5.00 and entitles one to their Annual and three quarterlies. They are about to issue their fourth quarterly and complete one year of operation. Dr. Walter E. Lammerts is chairman.
Rev. Maurice L. Bates, of Waco, Kentucky, issues a mimeographed letter entitled "Creation Crusade to Abolish Communism." He states that Communism depends on the evolutionary philosophy. He plans to publish textbooks and requests support.
American Association for Reformed
We have become acquainted with the Association for Reformed Scientific Studies through the influence of Dr. John Moore, biologist at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Dr. Moore attended a meeting of this group in Unionville, Canada, members coming mostly from Canada, and Calvinistic circles, all creationists. He has corresponded with Prof. J. J. Dyvene DeWit, a zoologist of South Africa, who has shown the weakness of organic evolution. Dr. R. Kooistra, in Hamilton, Ontario, is executive director of the group.
Moore said of the Unionville meeting: "I thank God that He has raised up such fine men of His calling, and such outstanding scholars to lead the movement for the establishment of a Christian University in North America. As a result of Prof. J. Vander Hoeven's lectures on the phenomenological movement and Dr Kooistra's presentation on the abolition of values of Western society in the university, plus the panel discussion by all lecturers on trends in the modern university, I now see my fellow associates more clearly and understand the nature of the decline of academics even in the face of oft repeated claims for 'progress' in teaching methods."
John Knox Junior College
Tlie Rev. P. P. Phillipa, Jr., of New Castle, Delaware, writes us concerning a new Junior College and Bible Institute among conservative Presbyterians in that area. They are interested in forming a chapter of both the Creation Research Society and of the Bible-Science Association in their area. Anyone interested in forming such a chapter should write to him in Delaware.
Evolution Protest Movement
Prof. L. V. Cleveland heads the "Evolution Protest Movement," operating out of Canterbury Connecticut. Their ten quarterlies, called the "Highway" have excellent information. Mr. Joe Guthrie of Houston, Texas, writes they are forming a chapter of the Evolution Protest Movement there, and would be happy to get in contact with anyone interested. He is in Houston, Texas.
The Bible-Science Association plans to have a meeting of its officers at Winnemucca, Nevada, on Friday, Jan. 29, to lay plans for future expansion.
International Christian Crusade
The International Christian Crusade, of Toronto, Ontario, Canada is doing effective work in getting out material for creationism. In their November Newsletter they pointed up how Mrs. Madalyn Murray, self-styled atheist, was sentenced in Baltimore to one year in prison and fined $500.00 on contempt of court charges. They asked that Christians pray for her. The booklet "Evolution" by John Howitt is published by this group.
MUTATIONS and EVOLUTION
(This article was prepared by Dr. Walter E. Lammerts, Director of Research, Germain's Horticultural Research Division, Livermore, California).
What is Evolution?
For an understanding it is necessary to define a few words.
Variability is often confused with evolution. All kinds of plants and animals show individuality and as a result we have much variation. The various races of mankind, varieties of roses, and the many breeds of cattle are well-known examples. Indeed, except for identical twins, no two individuals are exactly alike, and even they differ in personality traits as they mature. The amount of variability or variability potential is greater in some species than in others. Thus roses are highly variable, while the purslane weed is remarkably constant even though very widespread.
This variability is often called evolution by some modern students. If we limit our use of this much-overworked word to mean this readily-observed and demonstrable variability and differentiation into races, strains, breeds or varieties, much needless argument would be avoided.
However many scientists use the word evolution to mean the generalized theory that all kinds of plants and animals have descended from one or a few "simple" forms of one-celled organisms. Just what there actually were no one seems to know, since all existing one-celled creatures, such as bacteria, amoeba, diatoms, and foraminifera are remarkably complex.
In this essay we will use the word evolution to indicate this concept of descent from one or a few ancestral types. Scientists believing in this theory are evolutionists.
In addition to having a characteristic variability potential, plants and animals occasionally mutate. In roses we call this phenomenon "sporting" and sports often become valuable varieties. These mutations are inherited and have, in the last few years, been shown to be "mistakes" in the transmission of genetic factors by the intricate DNA system, the complicated pattern structure in the chromosomes which has the function of accurately transmitting the genetic traits of parents to their offspring. The great majority of these mutations are defective ones resulting in deformities, but occasionally, as I will show later, some are advantageous under new and unusual environmental surroundings.
Life from Inorganic Materials!
Evolutionists, to be consistent, have to believe that somehow, some time in the past, very "simple forms of life originated from inorganic chemicals." Thus it is Wald's belief that a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.1 If one refuses to believe in a God with power to create ex nihilo, I heartily agree with Wald. He quite correctly states that Pasteur proved untenable the idea, that living organisms now arise spontaneously under present conditions. He then endeavers to show that they may have so arisen under past conditions.
Naturally as he says, "Time is the hero of the plot." Given time enough even the "impossible" becomes possible. Actually scientists such as Wald and Walter R. Hearn substitute time for power.
In discussing the possible spontaneous origin of life, Wald is more honest than most chemical evolutionists. He says that students of chemistry are usually told that, when in 1828 Friedrich Woehler synthesized the first organic compound area, he proved that organic compounds do not require living organisms to make them. Of course it showed nothing of the kind. Organic chemists are alive! Woehler merely showed that they (living organisms) can make organic compounds externally as well as internally.
Organic chemists now mix inorganic substances such as water vapor, methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen together under the activation of an electric spark and find traces of glycine, alanine, and other simple amino acids. S. L. Miller, Sydney Fox, and Walter R. Hearn2 are quite excited over these discoveries and believe, as stated above, that, given time enough, life would arise in the sea from such spontaneously generated simple amino acids. Actually these men are only demonstrating that intelligent beings can make organic compounds from inorganic compounds. The complexity of the chemical apparatus used is such as to be a bit unrealistic in terms of their postulated primeval world, free of oxygen. The strange fact that our planet appears to be unique in having water as necessary to life is taken for granted by them. A complete discussion of this modern version of spontaneous generation is too involved, but reference to a paper by Duane T. Gish of Upjohn Company in the October Quarterly of the Creation Research Society will show the many insurmountable problems involved.
There is no question but what this, as a working hypothesis has much attraction to the modern "scientific" mind. At least the vocal majority of scientists believe it, either in its entirety or in part. The question is: Should the Church again make the same mistake as it did in adopting the pagan concepts of Ptolemaic astronomy taught by leading scientists from Ptolemy (100 A.D.) to Copernicus (1473) ? There is considerable evidence that the concept of evolution has insidiously influenced the philosophy of not only biology, organic chemistry, geology, and paleontology but such a foundation has also inflitrated the fields of philosophy, sociology, psychology, history, and even theology. So then, what really is the evidence for Darwin's extrapolation of his undeniably true micro-evolutionary observations into the general theory of evolution?
Darwin's Natural Selection
First, let us consider variation, natural selection of which, according to Darwin,3 developed new species. He considered variation as essentially unlimited with those individuals most fitted to the environment being naturally selected. Again, in the following generation, the same range of variability would occur. Thus, in the classical case of the evolution of the giraffe, quoting Darwin, "So under nature with the nascent giraffe the individuals which were the highest browsers and were able during dearths to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved, for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food. These slight proportional differences, due to the laws of growth and variation, are not of the slightest use or importance in most species. But it will have been otherwise with the nascent giraffe, considering its probable habits of life, for those individuals which had one part or several parts of their bodies more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner. By this process long continued combined with the inherited effects of increased use of parts (the longer neck) it seems to me certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe." It should be noted that Darwin assumes (1) continuous variation, i.e., each generation showing the same range in variation of neck length and (2) effects of continuous use for disuse). In fact, he devised a scheme of pangenesis now disproven to explain this presumed inheritance of the effects of use or disuse.
J. B. Lamarek was the most noted proponent of the doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, i.e., changes in plants or animals due to the environment, use or disuse. That such characteristics are acquired by individuals during their life is obvious. However, as the physical basis of heredity became better known, the possibility of inheriting environmental effects became increasingly difficult to believe. First, August Weisman developed his germ plasm theory "Das Keimplasma" in 1892. He clearly showed that reproductive cells, instead of being developed by gemmules assemb led from various parts of the body as suggested by Darwin, formed a continuous line from generation to generation developing only from germinal tissues. The body or somatic cells are then the result of germ cell activity. His views were clearly shown to be correct by proof developed from 1900 to 1930, that the chromosomes carry the genes or factors determining the characteristics of the body. Since they are protected during cell division and gamete for mation from most normal environment internal or external influences, acquired characteristics cannot of course be inherited. More recently proof that desoxyribos nucleic acid molecules (D. N. A.) arranged in helical fashion actually form an information code by which the body develops according to a master template makes even clearer the reason why the effects of environment cannot be inherited.
Gregor Mendel's Experiments
Now what are the real laws governing the inheritance of variation? Working diligently in his garden, the Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, carefully crossed various strains of garden peas and found a definite statistical pattern governing the inheritance of such characteristics as tall vs. dwarf growth habit. Tall (TT) habit was dominant to dwarf (tt) so that the first generation hybrids (Tt) were all tall. The dwarf habit (tt) of growth did not show up until the second filial generation or F2 when % of the plants were dwarf in habit (tt). Such traits are called recessive and some are due to two factors, so that they occur in only 1/16 of F2 population, and others due to three factors occurred in 1/64 of the F2 plants. Later work has shown that most major factors such as tall have modifying factors. Accordingly, by selection, slightly taller plants may be obtained. But the limits are soon reached and from then on selection is no longer effective, since the strain has been thus made true breeding or homozygous for all of them. Variability is then definitely limited instead of being unlimited as Darwin thought. This is quickly shown in breeding for such characteristics as long bud in roses, where the ultimate in bud length is achieved in 5 or 6 generations. Yield in corn is another example—corn breeders have made phenomenal progress during the first 20 years. But then these inbred lines of corn used to produce the famous high-yielding hybrid corn seed could no longer be further improved since all the major factors for high yield had already been accumulated. Now corn breeders' time is mostly spent in maintenance of these inbred lines and breeding for increased disease resistance, local adaption and other related problems. All our experience shows that, contrary to what Darwin believed, the variability potential of each species is definitely limited.
Is Evolution Possible by Mutations?
To what then do present-day evolutionists appeal for the mechanism of evolution? The answer is mutations which occur with varying frequency in plants and animals. Actually they are the result of a "mistake" in the process of gene reproduction or more specifically the duplication of the desoxyribose nucleic acid or D. N. A. molecules which either are, or house, the genes which determine the characteristics of plants and animals. Various agencies such as cosmic radiation and chemical mutagens cause mutations, but there is considerable evidence that a basic percentage is spontaneous, i.e, the reproductive mechanism simply does not perfectly reduplicate itself each time.
Can these chance "mistakes" or defects really explain the origin of the complex variation we see around us? Elliot G. Watson, British zoologist writing for the Saturday Evening Post lists four examples of life histories that simply cannot be explained by orthodox evolution theories. Thus the coral reef crab has claws so small as to be useless as weapons. But their backward curving teeth grasp the slippery bodies of small sea anemones, detaching them carefully from their hold on the rocks without injury. They are then held close to the pirate crab's mouth and continue to operate their tentacles so as to capture small creatures. These the crab, with his free front pair of walking legs, removes as dainty tidbits, leaving those he dislikes for the anemones which are finally released unharmed.
Are these adaptations to be explained by chance mutations? Did a chance modification of claws due to a "mistake" in duplication of some D. N. A. molecule prompt some ancestral crab to detach an anemone for the mere fun of it and by chance hold it near its mouth ? If so the crab passed on to its offspring this behavior tendency, and so through natural selection the crab species developed their close association with various anemones, the species differing, of course, to make the problem more complex, for each species of pirate crab. This, Watson says, he cannot accept, and I agree.
My scientific colleagues who are evolutionists make much of the undoubted fact that under unusual new environmental conditions some mutations are advantageous. Thus, when bacteria are catastrophically exposed to high levels of penicillin or streptomycin, most of them die. But occasionally one lives because of a mutation to tolerance of these antibiotics. In penicillin this resistance is a step-by-step phenomenon, i.e., by increasing dosage rate, increasingly resistant strains appear. In streptomycin the change to maximum resistance is effected in one mutation. But Pratt and Dufrenoy5 point out that these resistant types are lower in mentabolic ratio and at a disadvantage in cultures free of antibiotics. Are we then to believe in the strange concept that complex forms of life evolved by constantly stressing organisms in such a catastrophic manner? There is certainly no evidence that penicillin or streptomycin-resistant bacteria continuously grown in high level antibiotic culture ever achieve a metabolic ratio superior to the original type.
Mutation Only Increases Variable
Mutation merely increases the variability potential thus enabling a species to survive what otherwise would be complete annihilation. But this variability potential is definitely limited. Again my evolutionary colleagues argue that this only seems so because our time of observation is so short. But they, for some reason, fail to see that adaptation either by mutation or segregation of already existing variability (hetero-zygocity) rapidly occurs up to a certain level, and then stops.
Also the more complex the organism the less chance there is for mutations to occur of advantage, even under new environmental conditions. Thus, my own neutron radiation experiments with roses resulted in hundreds of mutations, some of possible horticultural value. However, without exception all were either weaker or more sterile than the variety radiated.
While a National Fellow at the California Institute of Technology, it was my privilege to see the wonderful array of mutations of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, obtained by Sturtevant, Bridges, and Dobschansky, who were then working with the great Thomas Hunt Morgan, who first realized the experimental value of this "biological Cinderella." Though remarkable as chromosomes markers in linkage studies, demonstrations of allelomorphism and other genetic problems, not one could be said to have a higher survival value than the normal type. Occasionally, as described in Timofeev-Ressovsky6, some mutations such as eversae or singed have a slightly greater viability at higher temperatures. But even these, if combined in one individual by cross breeding and selection, are reduced in viability and if combined with a third mutation have a lower viability than normal, even at the higher temperature. And most certainly, to effect significant changes in a species such as to warrant classification of it as a new one or place it in a different genus involves the accumulation of many mutations. The possibility of accumulation most certainly has not been demonstrated.
What Natural Selection Can and
In fact Band7 in a recent paper on natural selection in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, has given some rather remarkable evidence that natural selection does not increase the most highly viable true-breeding lines or homozygotes in natural populations. Her population studies were made in 1961 following an unusually severe winter in 1960-61 at Amherst, Massachusetts. The September temperatures were the highest on record and the samples were collected during this period, September 10th and 11th. In 1962 collections were made during the driest season on record. The results of genetic analysis of viability and variability in 1961 and 1962 were compared with those of 1960 and earlier ones 1947-49. Briefly stated, Band's conclusions are as follows:
Natural selection is highly efficient in maintaining population fitness during changing, environmental conditions. The effects, however, are manifest only in the heterozygotes. Stabilizing selection has led to the retention of most components of genetic diversity. There is no evidence of improvement among the homozygotes (these breeding true for various mutations). Also no decrease in the magnitude of the genetic load was shown. Most load components remained concealed in the random heterozygotes. Thus the joint effects of stabilization and directional selection appear directed to the inter-reaction of genes and their complexes in the heterozygous condition.
The effects of selection in the more stringent environment have possibly caused changes in the genetic structure of the population, with a resultant slight reduction in total genetic diversity.
The most interesting conclusion from this excellent experiment is hardly stressed sufficiently by Band. This is that there is no evidence that selection has been primarily directed toward the elimination of deleterious variants, or that such variants substantially reduce the viability of the heterozygote. Also even more interesting is her Figure 1, showing that no improvement in mean viability of the homozygotes or reduction in magnitude of the genetic load occurred.
From the viewpoint of evolving new characteristics these conclusions are indeed pertinent. The only source of new and distinguishing features, leading to species formation, are mutations. These must gradually be accumulated in true breeding or homozygous condition since of course species differ from each other in various traits which are constant, i.e., they always occur in truly distinctive species. Yet Band's research clearly shows that even the most viable homozygotes do not increase in number as a result of natural selection. Furthermore no improvement in their viability occurred. Since even drastic mutational changes, do not show deleterious effects in heterozygous condition, there is no mechanism for eliminating these. As has been shown, the ratio of "harmful" to "useful" mutations is at least 1000 to 1. Quite obviously then if a species evolves by mutation, the genetic load of drastic or harmful mutations would be so high in a few hundred generations as to result in almost all offspring having some defect, because of chance mating of identical genotypes and resulting homozygosity. The fortunate fact that this is not true argues for special creation of the species unit and its existence for a relatively short time instead of hundreds of thousands, or millions of years.
How the Theory of Selection over
Long Periods Slows Down Research
The theory of evolution by selection of mutations over a long period of time has greatly slowed down the accomplishment of results in the breeding programs of our many Agricultural Colleges. There is every reason to give a research scientist complete freedom in the selection of his research program in basic and theoretical institutions. Even though the working out of phytogenies on the basis of various evolutionary schemes has proven to be ephemeral, each generation of investigators discarding the conclusions of their predecessors, much valuable information has accumulated as a by product. However the so-called "basic research concept" has cast its shadow on the careers of men and methods in our practical plant-breeding institutions. In order to get promoted scientists even in these fields of work are supposed to do a considerable amount of basic research, which means to work out chromosome relationships, develop chromosome maps based on crossover studies of mutations, and as a result propose some sort of plausible evolutionary relationship of the species and varieties used in their plant-breeding programs.
The results of this dual approach are sometimes, in fact usually, reflected in the slow pace at which practical results are obtained. Thus recently the University of California College of Agriculture at Davis released a beautifully illustrated brochure announcing the release for trial of four varieties of cherries. Though admittedly having faults as do all varieties of plants these are advantageous in that they correct many of the serious defects of Black Tartarian and Royal Anne. It remains to be seen how much acreage of them will be planted. While studying this release I was amazed to note that the breeding program was begun 34 years ago.
In contrast, when at Armstrong Nurseries from 1935 to 1940, in addition to my rose breeding and other work, I developed four varieties of peaches; Robin, Redwing, Meadowlark, and Flamingo all bred for the ability to bear normal crops of fruit in spite of warm winters. Peaches adapted to eastern conditions need a considerable amount of winter chilling, that is exposure to temperatures of 40 degrees F. or lower in order to flower and fruit normally. Except for the variety Babcock, these were the only ones available and of course did not do at all well in Southern California, Arizona and similar warm winter areas. Robin and Redwing were more widely planted than any other new varieties for many years and still are in good demand.
My success in so rapidly developing these varieties was not due to any particular genius on my part but rather to the fact that I was not burdened by the evolutionary approach and instead used a dynamic creative cross breeding approach to the problem, ignoring all supposed phylogenetic evolutionary considerations. According I was able to combine in one variety desirable characteristics from widely divergent ones in a few years of intensive cross breeding and selection.
My success in so rapidly developing these varieties was not due to any particular genius on my part but rather to the fact that I was not burdened by the evolutionary approach, and instead used a dynamic creative cross-breeding approach to the problem, ignoring all supposed phylogenetic evolutionary considerations. Accordingly I was able to combine in one variety desirable characteristics from widely divergent ones in a few years of intensive cross-breeding and selection.
My former colleagues who have been carrying on the cherry breeding work, were continually burdened by the need of diverting their efforts from the main objective in order to be able to write papers presumably increasing the amount of "basic" information. Normally under such circumstances they could not be expected to make rapid progress even though they are sincere, dedicated, high-level scientific men.
It is time that state agricultural colleagues reevaluate their objectives, and realize that dedication to evolution concepts have a deadening effect on research progress. By the very nature of the time in order to accomplish change, a research worker tends to be content with slow progress, and believe that little can be accomplished in one lifetime.
New Species Form Rapidly
Harlan Lewis8, in a recent paper on catastrophic selection, comes to the conclusion that reorganization of the species chromosome genomes or makeup is a rapid process in which all the differences become consolidated within a few generations. In the genus Clarkia, which is his specialty, all the derivative diploid species are better adapted to dry conditions. The history of the genus is one of response to increasing aridity and change in seasonal distribution of rainfall. Lewis' concepts are in marked contrast to the usual evolutionary one which postulates that structural and quantitative changes in chromosomes accumulate as homozygotes one by one over a long period of time through random fixation or by selection of those with presumed slight selective advantage. He rather clearly proves that Clarkia lingulata is of recent origin. It has an additional chromosome not present in C. biloba (n equal 8) homologous to parts of two chromosomes of C. biloba. In other words, part of the basic genome of C. biloba is duplicated in C. lingulata (n equal 9). The genomes also differ by a large translocation and at least two paracentric inversions. Hence the hybrids between them are always sterile.
Lewis suggests interspecific hybridization or a mutator gene similar to that reported by Ives9 in Drosophila as the mechanism of chromosome reorganization.
From the viewpoint of creationism and flood geology, Lewis' concepts are most interesting. Certainly there is abundant evidence that since the Flood great areas of the world, including much of the Pacific North and Southwest have become increasingly arid. Lake Lahontan, once a vast inland body of water, is completely dried up and Lake Bonneville has shrunk to the Great Salt Lake.
Need of Intelligent Design
He does not, however, show how translocations or inversions became established. Dobachansky has clearly shown that translocations in homozygous condition are not viable. Of four translocations involving the second and third chromosomes of D. melangaster only one could be established in homozygous or true breeding condition. It was definitely less viborous than the wild type. Muller earlier had reported the same thing and work by Meta Suche Brown11 involving translocations between the third and fourth chromosomes resulted in her conclusion that "no completely fertile strain could be isolated." Inversions are, of course, merely translocations within the same chromosome and involve breakage and resulting injury also.
We are thus left in the strange dilemma of wishing to believe that changes such as postulated by Lewis could occur, since it would simplify an explanation of how the world became repopulated by so many distinct and obviously adapted species. Similar adaptness of species of roses, apples, and other deciduous plants to the cold weather brought on by glaciation as a result of the Flood is quite obvious and must have been, as Lewis postulates for Clarkia, quite rapid also.
Though not "scientific" in the usual sense, I suggest that we are constrained to believe that these reorganizations or transformations are the result of intelligent design. Those of us who believe in the power of God should have no difficulty in believing that following the Flood, as the surviving basic species repopulated the world, God used such mechanism as translocations, inversion, and duplication as means to adapt species to the changed environment. This phenomena is much like that in mankind where the languages were Suddenly and rapidly changed following the confounding of tongues at the Tower of Babel. In mankind, little in the way of chromosome variation or cross sterility of races has yet been demonstrated. The pattern, however, is much the same since the obvious physical, psychological, and adaptive features of human races are obviously fully as great or even more so than the one slight morphological differences separating Clarkia biloba from C. lingula, i.e., the much narrower shape of the petal!
Weakness in Radioactive Dating
The statement is so often made that our observational time scale is too short to verify evolution. Given several hundred thousand or a million years and changes on the specific or genetic level could easily be effected. It is very easy to appeal to such unverifiable assumption. But science is or should be demonstrated by facts, not imaginary possibilities. So often the statement is made, for example that radioactive dating by observation of the half-life of uranium, actinium, and thorium as they give off alpha particles and slowly change through a series of radioactive chemicals to radium and finally to the stable lead 206, 207 and 208 prove that the earth is about 1.5 or more billion years old.12 But surely a little reflection will show that several basic assumptions must be made before any conclusions from half-lives of radiation elements have any meaning Four of these are: (1) in the specimen of mineral used only uranium and none of its degeneration products were present at time-0; (2) no loss of uranium by leaching or loss of radon gas occurred; (3) there was never in the past a time when the rate of alpha particle loss was much greater than now; and (4) in the creation of uranium the reactions went the whole way. Or stated more precisely, how can we be sure that, in the build-up of uranium from hydrogen nuclei as physicists now conceive of the creation of the elements, some lead 206 and radium did not simply remain as such instead of all being converted to uranium and then disintegrating, giving the series of derivatives now used by the uniformitarian school of thought as being evidence of such great age? Morris and Whitcomb13 give a thorough critique of radioactive dating in the Genesis Flood.
Consideration of all the data of science compels us then to postulate a Creation event in the not-too-distant past in order to explain the behavior and appearance of the many complicated plants and animals around us.
References -- Literature Cited
1 Wald, George. "The Origin of Life, in the Physics and Chemistry of Life." Simon and Schuster, New York, NY (1955). pp. 5 - 13.
2 Hearn, Walter R. "Origin of Life." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, (1961) 13: 38 - 42.
3 Darwin, Sir Charles. "The Origin of Species," Everyman's Library (1859), Page 9.
4 Watson, Elliot G. "Hidden Heart of Nature," Saturday Evening Post (May 27, 1961), 284: 32-3.
5 Pratt, Robertson and Dufrenot, Jean Antibiotics, 2nd Edition. Phila. Lippincott Company, 1953, p. 343.
6 Timofeev-Ressovsky, N. W. "Ueber die Vitalitet einiger genmutationnen und ihrer Kombinationem bei Drosophila funebris und ihre Abhangigkeit vom 'genotypichen' und vom ausserem Mileau." Zeitschrift fur Ind. Abstam und Vererbungs lehre, Vol. 66 (1934), pp. 319 - 344.
7 Band. H. T. "Natural Selection and Concealed Genetic Variability in a Natural Population of D. Melangaster" Evolution, 18: 3, pp. 384 - 404.
8 Lewis, Harlan. "Catastrophic Selection as a Factor in Specia-tion." Evolution XXVI (1962), pp. 257 - 271.
9 Ives. P. T. "The Importance of Mutation Rate Genes in Evolution," Evolution, IV (1950), pp. 236 - 252.
10 Dobzchansky, T. "Translocations Involving the Second and Fourth Chromosomes of D. melanogaster. : Genetics, XVI (1831), pp. 629 - 658.
11 Brown. Meta Suche. "The Relation Between Chiasma Formation and Disjunction." University of Texas Publication, No. 4032 (1940), pp. 11 - 64.
12 Evans, Robley D. The Atomic Nucleus. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., (1955), Chapter 16, pp. 511 - 535.
13 Morris, Henry W. and Whitcomb, John C. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Ref., Phil., 1962.
GOD CREATED PLANTS
(This article prepared by Dr. George Howe, Santa Barbara, California.)
I. Natural Law and Miracles
God can work in at least two different ways on earth. He has chosen to keep the universe operating in a constant predictable fashion. God's consistent work is called "natural law," and "science" is man's' study of natural laws. Paul describes God's workings of natural law in Colossians 1:17, " . . .and in him all things consist."
God can also perform miracles. He can produce effects without any natural causes. We are not able to study miracles because they cannot be repeated or analyzed in the laboratory. Both natural law and miracles are of God and they go together. Without natural laws, the whole earth would be in a topsy-turvy disordered condition and we would never be able to recognize miracles. God's laws make a uniform background against which we can distinguish His miracles.
Our goal is to see what methods God used in the origin of life. Did he work by supernatural means or did He create by the same natural laws that can be measured now? We can try to answer this question by looking at the Word and the world.
II. Scripture, Plant Creation
Since the Bible comes directly from the author of life, we must take its creation story more seriously than any of man's theories about origins. The Bible becomes an important tool in studying creation because it presents an account of how God worked before ANY scientist was able to watch. Creation was a scientific experiment in which only God kept records. It was a "launching" in which only God heard the "countdown." When a scientist tries to discover how life was formed, he is like a person trying to learn more about the years when he was a baby. To know how cute, ornery, happy, or destructive he was during the first year or two of life, he must accept what his parents tell him. The best information about creation is likewise freely revealed to us by our Lord Who not only watched the process but did the work Himself.
The Scripture does not reveal the exact recipe God may have used in making each organism, but it does give a record of creation in general. Let's analyze closely what God has told us about the creation of plants in particular:
"And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day." Genesis 1:11-13 (ASV).
"And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground; but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Genesis 2:5-6 (ASV).
The creation story which we read sounds much like Christ's miracles. Our Lord's spoken words brought immediate action, without any apparent natural mechanism. For example when He spoke a word of rebuke, winds stopped and waves settled (Matthew 8:26). The words, "be it done unto thee" were spoken and a Canaanitish woman's daughter was healed (Matthew 15:28). As recorded in Matthew 21:19, one sentence fell from Jesus' mouth and a fig tree immediately withered. Three words spoken by Christ in John 11:43 brought dead Lazarus out of the tomb. Christ's earthly utterances led directly to events that He willed. Turning to Genesis 1, we note a striking similarity. The phrase, "and God said," appears about 9 times. At least six of these nine spoken commands were followed by the phrase, "and it was so." God spoke and it was so. Thus creative activity parallels the New Testament miracles in which Jesus spake and events took place. The very language used by Moses breathes of supernatural working. There is no hint of any long, uniform, evolutionary development of Life. Other Bible accounts of creation also show that miraculous results followed creative words. Hebrew 11:3, "By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear." The very name given to the creating God demonstrates creation's method. It is both fitting and proper that He is called the "Word" in John 1. One word is spoken and worlds appear. As more divine words are pronounced, plants sprout from the ancient earth. Listen to Psalm 33:6 as it tells the exact creation method, "By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." After talking about stars, light, waters, angels, and the moon, the Psalm writer says, "Let them praise the name of Jehovah for he commanded and they were created." (Psalm 148:5).
Creation and Providence
Whenever God formed things, such as when He established the Christian Church in apostolic days, He frequently announced the new event by miracles or signs. Creation too was something new. It was therefore entirely in keeping with God's nature to create the universe by miraculous means and then to maintain it by natural laws. We see such change of action regularly in the construction of a skyscraper. The contractor first uses tools such as the bulldozer, pile-driver, hammer, and power saw. Once the building is completed, routine maintenance requires a different set of tools and activities. The riveting of girders and the pouring of foundations are replaced by the swish of a mop or the turning of a screwdriver. Construction demands a more intense activity than maintenance. The use of miracles in creation is therefore indicated in the Bible, in keeping with God's nature, and in keeping with the kind of work to be done.
III. Science, Miracles and Creation
Another way to examine God's creation process is to look at the world about us. But please remember that science will never be able to repeat and test God's miracles. The only way to decide from science how likely it is that God made plants miraculously is to study plants themselves.
The best information we can get to help us decide how plants were formed comes from a study of fossils. Fossils are the remains or evidences of former living things. Fossils can be formed in several different ways. Most of the fossils were formed when organisms were quickly buried under sediments carried and deposited by water. After some time passed, the sediments hardened and formed rock. In Southern California we know that fossils also formed when plants or animals fell into asphalt. They were preserved under the sticky pools in such places as the La Brea tar pits. Fossil insects are frequently found cemented in the resin secreted by ancient trees. Volcanic lava or ashes often buried living forms and produced fossils. Even ice may hold fossils as in the case of the quick-frozen mammoths of Siberia. Steaks from these early beasts were shipped to the United States and made delicious eating. Sedimentary Bock Layers Most of the fossils are found in sedimentary rock layers. Geologists identified and named the layers by their usual position in the earth and by the kinds of fossils they contained. Some layers are generally found on top and others are frequently down beneath some upper strata. No one really knows how the layers were formed. Remember, if you please, no scientist was there taking notes. There are two different ideas about the origin of the layers. (1) Some scientists believe that the sediments were laid down gradually over long ages. This view is called "Uniformitarianism" and it suggests that the earth is extremely old and that fossils formed slowly during eons of time. Many crea-tionists believe there is good reason to question the great age of such fossil layers. (2) Some other scientists (mostly Christian people) believe that fossil layers were originated during the great flood. "Flood geologists," as they are called, suggest that each advancing flood wave carried sediment that buried plants and animals from higher and higher land levels. From the flood geologic viewpoint, the fossils are much younger. But here, we shall discuss only two scientific facts: (1) There are rook layers, (2) and in the layers fossil plants are found. We shall briefly consider some of the plant fossils and try to see whether all plants seem to have evolved from common ancestry or whether they appear to have been created "after their kind" as the Bible states.
From the largest to the smallest, all plants are made of cells. A cell is a tiny living unit. Even the simplest cells are like complicated factories with miniature electro-chemical parts. It would take many chemists, buildings full of chemical equipment, and perhaps many years to do just a few of the chemical tricks that cells perform each split-second. Nobody knows where cells came from and nearly all the fossils appear to be composed of cells. The strongest argument in favor of Divine Creation is the cell itself!
Certain miniature plants are only a few cells large. They have special pigments or chemicals which give them their color and their group name—"blue-green algae." The chlorophyll in the cells is a green pigment that helps to change sunlight energy into food energy of sugar. They also have a blue pigment. Blue-green algae have various shapes —some are only one cell, some are clusters of cells in a jelly-like mass, some are filaments, and still others are flat plates. Each kind is a wonderfully complex system that duplicates itself. In the Pre-Carnbrian rocks imprints are found that look like blue-green algae. In Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian rock layers other blue-green forms have been discovered. They look quite like the blue-green algae alive today.
Other plants called "green algae," have a grass-green color because their cells contain chlorophyll but not the blue pigment. The greenish scum that grows on lakes is often a mass of green algae plants. New and different kinds of green algae are found in Devonian and Ordovician rocks. Fossil green algae are quite like some forms that presently grow in the ocean.
Red algae have a red pigment in addition to the green chlorophyll. They generally grow at the low-tide level in the ocean. Fossil red algae, quite similar to those of today, are found in the Ordovician rocks.
Like red algae, brown algae have another pigment that hides the green color. Giant kelp is one modern example of these plants. In Japan, dried algae are packaged and used for food. Fossils thought to be brown algae are present in the Devonian rocks.
Members of the various algae and seaweed groups enter the fossil record without a hint of an ancestry. Many of the fossil forms resemble the plants of our 20th century oceans and lakes. Not all the algae shows up in any one layer but various types make their debut in several different rock layers. These facts do not easily fit evolution theory but are what would be expected if God created miraculously.
The black bread mold, the mushroom, and the Penicillium mold of oranges are all fungi. Several fungus plants yield some of our finest wonder drugs. Some other fungi are parasites and cause severe diseases of other plants, animals, and man, Fungus plants have filaments that do not contain chlorophyll in the cells. Scientists have discovered fungus parasites inside the walls of cells from fossil land plants of Devonian layers. Plants from Carboniferous (or coal) strata are similar to present day fungus families. Forms like the bread mold are found in coal layers also. The fungus groups are seen to make their entrance into the fossil rocks without any family tree or clue as to their origin. They appear in the rocks as if they had been created.
Liverworts and Mosses
Liverworts and mosses are fascinating little plants that few people ever notice. Liverworts frequently grow on clay banks during the rainy season and throughout the entire year on moist rocks near waterfalls. Their flat green bodies are composed of many cells. Because the liverwort shape vaguely resembles a liver, some ancient peoples believed that a dose of liverworts would cure liver ailments. Fossil liverworts are found in the Triassic layer. In 1961 liverwort fossils were discovered in the Devonian strata—layers that are sometimes beneath other layers or deeper in the earth.
Mosses are somewhat like liverworts. Moss plants form miniature cushions that may carpet the rocks in the woods or grace the stones along a stream bank. Fossil mosses, looking much like the modern "hairy-cap" moss, are found in Carboniferous rocks. Thus both" the mosses and liverworts are separate entities in whatever layer they are encountered. Fossil mosses and liverworts resemble those now on earth and we are left with no evidence to show us their origin. They "speak" of creation.
Some fossil plants are placed in a large group of their own because they have conductive systems through which food and water move. All plants with conducting vessels of one kind or another are called "vascular plants." We shall glance at several different kinds of vascular plants and see what their fossils indicate.
In rocks of Silurian type, little plants about 8 inches high are discovered. Rhynia, as one of these extinct fossil plants is called, looked like grass but bore no seeds. At the tips of special branches little packets of spores or reproductive cells were formed. Rhynia plants had pairs of guard cells in their skin or epidermis layer. Guard cells are special structures that bulge on one thin side and curve inwards on the other thicker side. When two neighboring guard cells swell, a hole or stomate pore forms between them. Through the stomate, gases may diffuse into or out of the plant body. Nobody knows how Rhynia, and other such small but complex vascular plants were produced. They simply show up in the rocks as if they had been created "after their kind." Incidentally, the whisker fern plants in 20th century Florida are somewhat like Rhynia of Silurian layers.
In Devonian rocks, fossils of four new and different vascular plant groups come into view. The ferns are one of the Devonian fossil finds. No seeds are present, but ferns reproduced by tiny spore cells formed in clusters on the under surface of the leaves. Some of the ancient ferns formed wood like our trees of today, but most of the tree ferns went extinct. Evolutionists cannot say how ferns arose. The ferns testify to creation.
The seed ferns were a second group of Devonian land plants. As their name indicates, seed ferns closely resembled the other ferns, but in addition they bore seeds. In fossil botany, the word "seed" refers to a sac which usually contains only one large spore and is covered by layers of cells called "integuments." The seed becomes detached from the main plant and an embryo formed within the seed can yield a new plant. Some of the seed fern seeds were arranged singly on the tips of leaves, while in others the seeds were nestled in a beautiful cup-like vessel. Some scientists believe that seed ferns came from the real ferns by evolution. But fossils of seed ferns are found as deep or deeper in the rock layers than are the ferns themselves. Some of the seed ferns are found in Devonian rocks but most of them appear in Carboniferous or coal strata. Seed ferns are simply found "as nice as you please" in the particular rocks with no evolutionary history recorded.
The third kind of plants preserved in Devonian and Carboniferous rocks are like the horsetail plants growing at this moment along stream beds. The ancient horsetails or "Calamites," however, grew as large as trees and had woody stems. They frequently reproduced by male and female spores that were formed in delicate sporangia. Since some of the deepest fossils of these plants are very complex, they do not seem to have evolved from any simple ancestors. You cannot "link" these to any other plant group. They confirm the Genesis record.
The fourth plant recognized in the Devonian is the Cordaites. These extinct trees had long, thin leaves, woody stems, and spores formed in complex leafy cones. They do not appear to have evolved from any other plant group.
The fifth and last discovery in Devonian rocks that we shall discuss is the Lepidodendron trees. These plants and others like them had a beautiful spiral pattern on the upper portion of their stems formed by the scars of fallen leaves. They grew to 135 feet in height and up to six feet in diameter. Ferns, seed ferns, Calamites, Cordaites, Lepidodendron, and other plants formed vast forests which were buried under sediment and hardened into the coal deposits we now mine and use for fuel.
The Permian is another rock layer and it is generally found farther up in the earth's surface. In the upper portion of Permian rock layers, four new and distinct plant fossil groups are seen. Each of these groups gives evidence for the Creative World.
The Ginkgo tree fossils are clearly identified in these rocks. Ginkgo is also called "maidenhair tree." Its beautiful fan-shaped leaves and graceful form make it a popular shade tree planting in parks all across America. Female Ginkgo trees bear large fleshy seeds that look like cherries but smell like rotten butter. Ginkgo plants appear to be separate and unlike any other forms. Fossils of fan-shaped leaves are found in deeper rock layers such as the Devonian.
Some other plants found in Permian rocks bear their seeds nakedly on leafy scales of "cones" and are therefore called "conifers." The origin of the conifers is another puzzle because they have always been distinct and separate from other plants. Some of the fossils of conifers from the Permian rocks are like the Araucaria trees and are called Araucarioxylon. Great logs of petrified Araucarioxylon trees can be seen at Petrified forest in Arizona. Some of the fossil Ar-aucarias from other rock layers bear large cones like those of the modern Bunya Bunya tree. Certain ancient conifers bore needles and their cones looked like those of pine trees found today.
Conifers Herald Creation
Most people do not recognize a cycad when they see one. Fossil cycad trees are also found in Permian and Triassic rocks. Their leaves are like those of palms and the seeds are borne on a hefty cone in the center of the plant. The male cycad bears a different cone that sheds pollen. Florida Arrowroot starch is a special food product made from one of the Central American cycads. Since it is easily digested, it is used as food for invalids, small children, and people on some special diets. Some scientists believe that cycads came from seed ferns but there is a great difference between the two forms with no fossil evidence to bridge the gap. They each appear to be separate created units.
Plants of the Bennettitales group are the last upper Permian forms we shall consider. These are now extinct but their fossils seem to resemble small cycad trees. They have been of great interest because some botanists have believed they might have been somewhat like the ancestors of flowering plants. The reproductive organs of the Bennettitales do have an outer whorl of feathery leaf-like parts which was thought to be like the petals and sepal whorl around a flower. Above these there was thought to be a set of compound pollen stalks which were believed to unroll during growth forming something like a whorl of stamens in a flower. Finally, there was a central seed-bearing shaft that certainly resembles the central portion of a Magnolia flower. In 1963, however, Theodore Delevoryas showed that the earlier idea of 1960 was wrong. 1 Taking a closer look at the fossil rocks, Dr. Delevoryas has found that the pollen stalks were not elongated like stamens in a flower, but they formed a solid mass inside which pollen grains were produced. This whole fused unit is supposed to have fallen from the stalk—something quite unlike the Magnolia. So, what looked like a perfectly good candidate as a typical ancestor for the Magnolia flower (and is still shown as such in most recent school books) is now known to have been something entirely different. Delevoryas, who brought about this brilliant corrective research, suggests that the history of the flowering plant still remaining a mystery.
The plants that are best known to most of us are the flowering plants. Their main characteristic is that they bear their seeds completely enclosed in any ovary or fruity covering. As their name implies, they generally have a flowery reproductive structure of one kind or another. Like Magnolia, flowers of some plants have many different flower parts. Various kinds of flowers have characteristics numbers of each particular part. First there is a set of sepals which are usually green and leaf-like. Next a series of colorful petals is found which frequently has a fragrant aroma that attracts insects. Third, and closer to the center of the flower axis is a cluster of stamens. Each stamen looks like a miniature golf club or paddle and is tipped by a large yellow sac-like anther which produces the pollen grains. At the very tip of the flowering stalk are a number of pistils or ovaries. Inside these complex organs seeds are formed. Some flowers are much simpler - lack ing sepals, petals, or both. Some kinds of plants like the willow have the male stamens and the female ovaries on entirely different flowers. This group of drab female willow flowers is a far cry from the gaudy Magnolia blossom.
To be concluded in February 1965 issue
How Is Your Supply of Creationist Material?
"The Twilight of Evolution"
by Henry Morris.
We have sold hundreds of copies of this book in paperback. It is available at $1.50 and at a discount in larger quantities. This book was made available in paperback through the backers of the Los Angeles Bible Institute. Mr. A. C. Knippa of Austin, Texas, has made it available for all pastors of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod in Texas. Be sure you have your supply of the following materials available from the Bible-Science Association. (An asterisk indicates new literature available).
"The Challenge of Creation" paperback, $1.50—there are the six essays from the Los Angeles Institute, ready sometime in January.
"The Genesis Flood" —Morris and Whitcomb, $4.25—still the standard in the field.
"The Messianic Character of American Education," Rousas J. Rushdoony. $6.50. This is a remarkable analysis of the leaders of American Education from the time of Horace Mann.
"Biology, the Story of Life" a textbook for High School (creationist) Ernest Booth. $5.00.
"Studies in Genesis One" by Edward J. Young. $1.50.
"Christianity and The Problems of Origins" by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, $.75.
"The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God" by Gordon H. Clarke, $1.50.
"Genes, Genesis, and Evolution"—Dr. John Klotz, $6.00.
"Modern Science in the Christian Life" —Dr. John Klotz, paperback, $1.75.
"Evolution, Creation and Science" —Frank Marsh, $3.50
"Why I Believe in Creation, Not Evolution" —Fred John Meldau, paperback, $2.75.
"Darwin, Before and After" R. E. D. Clark, $1.95.
"Joshua's Long Day" Totten, $1.95.
"After Its Kind" — Byron Nelson, $2.50.
"Darwin, Evolution, and Creation" —Paul A. Zimmerman and others, $1.95.
"Harmony of Science and Scripture" and "Theory of Evolution and Facts of Science" —both by H. Rimmer, $3.50 and $2.50.
"Creation Research Annual" and two quarterlies available for $5.00 membership to this group.
"Studies in Bible and Science" Henry Morris, $2.00.
"If Not Evolution, What Then?" —Monsma, $.60.
"Evolution, Fact or Theory" Reno, $.39.
"Cross, Constellation, and Crucible: Lutheran Astrology and Alchemy in the Age of the Reformation"—John Narwick Montgomery, shows how Luther supported science, $.50.
"Twelve Bridges No Evolutionist Has Ever Crossed"— O. E. Sanden, $.10.
"The High Way" —10 Quarterlies from the Evolution Protest Movement, $4.50.
Two-color-booklets by Moody Institute
to go with their films, $.15 each:
"The Prior Claim," "God of the Atom," "Windows of the Soul," "Dust," "God of Creation," "City of the Bees," "Hidden Treasures," "Mystery of Three Clocks," "Bed River of Life," and "Time and Eternity."
"The Origin of the Solar System" — John Whitcomb, an elaboration of an article found in an earlier issue of the Newsletter, $.50.
"A Christian View of Modern Science" by Robert L. Reymond, paper $.50.
"Translation and Subversion" by R. J. Rushdoony, $.10.
"Hope for These Times" by Frank Lewis Marsh, reprint paper $.05.
Six Tapes, with discussion of lectures of Lammerts, Howe, Burdick, Rusch, Davidheiser, and Lang, at the Los Angeles Institute. $3.00 for each essay, one essay to a tape.
"The Christian and Science" Dr. Paul E. Zimmerman, essay at Convention in June. We are now able to get all four essays on one tape and sell this for $3.00.
Six tapes by John Whitcomb of lectures he gave in March, 1964 at San Francisco on "Science and the Bible," "Creation of Adam and Eve," "The Flood and Judgment," "The Flood and Miracles," "Original Perfection and Edenic Curse," "The Bible and Evolution," Two for $3.00. Tape by Henry Morris on Evolution given at Lutheran Free Conference in 1963, $3.00.
Two short tapes by Theodore Handrich with his school children, "God—the Fountain of All Energy," "The Bible and Science," $3.00 for both.
A tape by David Warriner and
John Moore showing influence of evolution at today's universities,
$3.00. Another tape by David Warriner; a Bible Class on Evolution, $3.00.
FILMS and FILMSTRIPS
We have available about 15 filmstrips with scripts for loan on various scientific subjects, bringing a Christian message. These are sent out on a donation basis.
We recommend the film "Beloved Enemy" put out by Gospel Films, with $100.00 minimum guarantee, a 90-minute production in color and sound.
And we recommend "A Time to Live"
put out by Concordia at $10.00 rental.
TRACTS AND BOOKLETS
"The Christian and Science" Paul Zimmerman, essay at convention in June —over 2,000 copies sold, $.25.
"Evolution or Special Creation" —F. Marsh, 1963, $.50
"Creation, Not Evolution" a summary of Meldau's book by that title, $.25.
"Evolution" — Howitt, $.25.
"Why I Believe the Genesis Record" — Hand, $.20.
"God Created" —George Howe, $.15.
"Evolution, Fact or Fraud" Robert E. Kofahl, $.05.
"A Catechism en Evolution" Paul E. Zimmerman, $.05.
SCIENCE and the BIBLE
by WILBERT RUSCH
Prof. Wilbert Rusch, M.S. Ann Arbor, Michigan
--- Continued from December 1964
In the recent Darwinism Centennial, the convocation address was delivered by Sir Julian Huxley. That he is of the same opinion as Tyndall is apparent when one reads, "Equally, of course, the evolutionary outlook must be scientific, not in the sense that it neglects or rejects other human activities, but in believing in the value of the scientific method for eliciting knowledge from ignorance, and truth from error, and in basing itself on the firm ground of scientifically established knowledge." Vol. III, p. 256
How firm a foundation is this science that Tyndall, Huxley, Simpson, Muller and others would have us accept as the source of answers to all human questions?
In SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW, Anthony Standen points out that physics is science at its best. Having had its beginnings in the 17th century, it has progressed rapidly until it is now the most highly developed of all sciences. It deals with exact measurements, it reduces its phenomena to mathematical equations, and its terms are precisely and rigidly defined. The head of the physics department of a university I recently attended pointed out that some 50 years ago, the physicists believed that physics was a dead subject. By this they implied that all the major facets of the subject were known and all that remained was to tie up a few loose ends. No additional major developments were expected. Yet, even while some were still holding this view, men like Rutherford and Einstein were already at work on the concepts that would supersede Newtonian physics. Since 1940, with the rapid advance of nuclear physics, some additional valued absolutes have gone down the drain, e.g. "matter cannot be created nor destroyed." This feature of great changes in physics is not confined to nuclear energy and related alone.
Within the past five years, we have also had a good example of a rather drastic change in the field of color vision. Dr. Edwin Land, of Polaroid fame, had been working on a method to make color pictures in a minute. This involved a thorough investigation of what color really is and how we see it. The results of his studies were, given in the Scientific American of May, 1959, in an article entitled "Experiments in Color Vision" by Dr. Land. Those results were rather astounding. It would seem as if, however color vision works, it doesn't work the way the physicists and physiologists had believed it did. Again "everything settled" disproved. There are various devices that can match colors accurately, one of the most precise being the spec-trophotometer. But, there is a catch, the answers that the instrument gets will always look right to the human eye, but there are matches that look perfect to the eyes that the spectropho-meter says are not even remotely similar. For example, there is a mixture of red and blue that matches a particular violet according to human vision. But the spectrophometer says the two results are not even vaguely alike.
Let me again emphasize exactly what has occurred. Essentially Land has added nothing to the store of man's knowledge. He has dramatically swept into the discard a whole shelf of of books about the nature of color vision. The basic patents for real full color photography have not been issued; we just thought they had. However, prior to the discovery of Land, physics teachers, myself among them, had been holding forth about the nature of color with considerable confidence that their knowledge was certain and absolute.
Before leaving the subject of physics, we might consider a statement by Paul Freiherrs von Handel of the University of Munich, as follows: "In all of modern physics, we are daily and constantly employing concepts which are fundamentally incomprehensible. Incomprehensible in the sense that they are not objectionable, not real. But this does not prevent us from arriving at concrete, in fact, very drastic consequences with the results of our physical experiments. In the space-time four dimensional model it becomes apparent that the movement of a body with the speed of light is characterized by the circumstance that its spatial measurement shrivels to zero, while its mass becomes infinitely great. Actually, the end result of the quantum theory forces us to question the objectifiability of the things outside us." This means we can enjoy the fruits of physics, without necessarily having to accept the models as real.
A difficulty that is characteristic of human understanding is that we really require a model of something before we can understand it. This is the way the scientist operates — he gathers a body of data and material, and then constructs a model, for example, of an atom, or the universe, or a process such as an earthquake, and so forth. If this model then seems to be consistent and provides a working basis, it is used, just as long as it seems to be consistent. The model in many cases may look good in its broad applications, but often will begin to break down as new data is gathered, except in narrow specialized applications. Now, whereas this breakdown is recognized by the specialist in his immediate circle of labor, it very often is not publicized. So the popular literature, as well as lower level texts, will continue to give the broad presentation and application, long after the scientists in the higher echelons at work with the model have restricted and ceased to apply it in the broad fashion represented in such texts. Such corrections or broadenings may not be encountered till the graduate level.
Ptolemaic System Probably an interesting sequence of the superseding of models might be the Ptolemaic system. Actually, no one had really disproved the Ptolemaic system prior to space exploration. It is just that the Copernican system required simpler mathematics, so the principle of Occam's razor was applied, and the Copernican system was currently accepted, while the Ptolemaic system was rejected. I doubt whether any of the scientific laymen in the audience are aware of, or remember, that we sort of) began with the Dalton model of the atom, which was discarded for the Thomson, which has been replaced by the Rutherford model; and I believe that the current model is the Bohr. It might also be pointed out that particularly in the field of the physical sciences, many of our models are becoming more and more at variance with common sense. For example, common sense tells me that this table is solid and hard. But current atomic models would have me believe that it is composed of extremely small units that are widely separated, and constantly in motion.
Scientific Blind Spots
What of the attitudes of the men working in scientific areas? James B. Conant once felt impelled to note in an essay, "There is a fairly common fallacy that if you are dealing with scientific and technical matters, judgment of values rarely, if ever, enters in. Facts speak for themselves in science, we are often told. Anyone who is familiar with the course of scientific research and development knows this is nonsense .... The notion that a scientist is a cool, impartial, and detached individual is, of course, absurd. The vehemence of conviction, the pride of authorship, burn as fiercely among scientists as among any creative workers."2
Scientists, being humans, may be pardoned if they develop a blind spot where years of work are concerned. This doesn't exclude their potential blind spots when evaluating the authority of the conclusions. Some geologists of the past have apparently gone to certain areas with preconceived notions, seen what they wanted to see, and then described their observations accordingly. A speaker at a seminar I attended held that whole sets of formations on the California-Nevada border apparently just do not match the written description of them for precisely this reason, and so the work would have to be done over.
It is simple to come up with broad general theories as to the origin of the universe. Such speculations are good, clean, honest fun. What happens when the details are requested? We have at the present time two contradictory theories of the origin of the universe, each of which was presented by its adherents as if it were practically certain. Yet, to date, there is no explanation of the origin of the solar system (just a small part of that universe) that will stand up under its objections and difficulties.
It is not often realized that the application of the scientific method has some inherent difficulties which limit its application. One of these is that the application of scientific analysis always involves the separation of the whole into its separate parts, which may be destructive. For example, it is impossible to make a complete chemical analysis of a living body, because it would die in the process, and you would be analyzing a dead body which might be an entirely different proposition. You cannot analyze your psychological relations with a close friend without endangering the friendship. In cases such as these, the investigator is forced to resort to intuitive judgments, which are not backed up by detailed scientific analysis These judgments have been often wrong, but the scientist considers that it is better to run the risk of wrong judgments, than to reach an impasse because of unwillingness to run the risk of uncertainty. Unfortunately, in popular and elementary presentations of science, this aspect is never even hinted at.
If these limitations of science are recognized, the Christian should not object to the speculating of scientists, but he certainly should object when he is told and his children are taught that he and the Church must abandon what Scripture clearly teaches because it is in conflict with such speculation. As Conant pointed out "Nevertheless, statements about the past, predications about the future, generalizations about what event will follow another are all grist for the mill of the thoroughgoing skeptic."3
3) SCIENCE AND THE CHURCH
Interestingly enough, Western science is a product of the Christian religion. It is in Christianity that expression is given to the conviction of a rational universe with one ultimate principle of explanation. Alfred Whitehead wrote, "There seems to be but one excuse for the inexpugnable belief that every detailed occur-ence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles ... It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God . . . Every detail was supervised and ordered, the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality."4 This was expressed, of course, in terms of a Creator who sustained the whole universe in His hand.
Normally, we might not expect the Church to take an interest in science, at least not to any greater degree than it does in any other discipline. But when the constant theme of science is that the entire universe, our planet earth as well as life on it, developed solely through the operation of natural laws, then there is a tension set up between the Biblical theology that our church teaches and the science encountered in our daily lives, be it at school, in magazine and periodical reading, or any other communication media. These opposite views of the world in which we live are the basis for the warfare between many prominent and vocal scientists and those who maintain Biblical theology.
Scientists and God
I am not forgetting that there are three science texts with which I have had personal contact in the last three years that seem to favor the idea of the existence of a God. I am also aware of the fact that it is frequently pointed out that there are many scientists who believe in God. But my personal experience over 25 years at some ten different colleges and universities, dealing with both faculty and fellow science students, would seem to indicate that these beliefs do not always include an acceptance of such basic Christ-ion doctrines as the Trinity, Original Sin, the Existence of Angels and Devils, the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Resurrection of Christ. Above all, the instructors' religious beliefs do not seem to be reflected in their teaching. The presentation is on a natural, mechanistic basis, and it is this approach that leaves its mark on the student. The Missouri Synod's answer is to operate its own schools.
Let us take a look at the philosophies of some men who might be teaching some phase of science at a university or research center:
Wilbur M. Smith made a study of the Resurrection of Christ as viewed by scientists to serve as the basis for an article in Christianlty Today. He found 606 scientists of sufficient stature to be Listed in WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA. From this list, he eliminated the Unitarians, agnostics and Jews, leaving a remainder of 544. To this group, he sent the question: "Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?" Only 228 bothered to reply, and of these 36 replied in the affirmative, while 192 replied in the negative. Yet, all of these 192 claimed membership in some Protestant denomination.5
That the majority of denials came from Congregationalists and Methodists occasioned no surprise to Smith. But the fact that as many Episcopalians denied the Resurrection as affirmed it was surprising. So was the fact that more Baptists and Presbyterians rejected the Resurrection than affirmed it. Parenthetically, it might be stated that apparently at that time there were no Lutheran scientists listed in WHO'S WHO. One may raise the question as to the value of such a small sampling, but I think that the results are at least indicative.
A study by Anne Roe called "The Making of a Scientist," published in 1953 by Dodd Mead & Company, consisted of interviews and psychological tests applied to 64 eminent American men of science. The group was selected by a sound sampling procedure in terms of criteria of eminence in the sciences. Nothing was known of the religious backgrounds of the men when they were chosen for the study. In the group of 64, five were Jewish homes, the parents of one were strong free-thinkers, and 58 came from Protestant families. None had Catholic backgrounds. Of the scientists themselves, only three of the 64 were at all active in church affairs and a few others attended church occasionally blue were not concerned with institutionalized religion. Scientists, Miss Roe concluded, were for the most part agnostics.
Peace, Peace, and no Peace
Some writers endeavor to give the impression that there is peace between science and scripture nowadays; there is only a lunatic fringe in theology that that has not come to terms with the views of science. Their opinion is that the Scriptures must give way to scientific hypotheses whenever there is disagreement between the two. But such writers cry "Peace, Peace, when there is no peace." Bernard W. Anderson wrote an article entiled "THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S"6 in which he states: "What was a hot war back in the 1920's has dragged on subsequently as a cold war, although wide-spread religious indifference might easily give the im-pression that the issue has been forgotten. Conservatives have worked out an uneasy truce by attempting to adduce instances of harmony between modern science and Scripture. Others, not suffering from Biblicist inhibitions, have accommodated the creation faith to the doctrine of evolution." So Anderson is one who recognizes that the battle is not over. In this day, as one who suffers from Biblicist inhibitions, I must agree with him.
Must Theology make terms with
We are also beginning to realize that we have brethren in the Christian Church having in all sincerity become convinced that theology must come to terms with science, have embarked on fifth columnist methods to overthrow the traditional Scriptural stand of the church on such points as creation, particularly that of man, the Fall, the Flood, and even life after death. On the other hand as a reader of Christianity Today it would seem that in many denominations there is a resurgence of "back to the Scripture" theology and a return to orthodoxy. That this is not a voice crying in the wilderness, but rather a voice filling a need for many today, is apparent from the increasing circulation of this comparatively young magazine. The representative fundamentalism of writers from many denominations is decidedly heartening.
As a worker in the discipline of science, I recognize that the average person, whether pastor, teacher, or layman, cannot cope with the developments and ramifications of the many fields of science in this day and age. That time has long passed when any one individual could speak with authority on the subject of science as a whole. In fact, we have reached that stage where any one field of science has become too cumbersome for one individual to master. So instead of geologists, we have paleontologists, geochemists, geophysicists, stratigraphers, structural geologists, and so forth. In place of chemists, we have organic chemists, metallurgists, colloidal chemists, physical chemists, and so forth. I could follow this through with all the other areas. Hence, the science layman may feel overwhelmed by the profound statements issuing from scientists speaking and writing at all levels today. And when the question of origins arises it is understandable that some will react by considering theological surrender as the only recourse remaining. But such a partial surrender is dangerous, since there is a voice in science that is not satisfied with the adjustment of religion to science, but calls for the complete elimination of any form of Christianity as we know it. A few examples of the more virulent type in our country:
In 1941, Oscar Riddle wrote an article in an NEA handbook, and I give you two quotes: "Natural, not supernatural law rules in the world in and about us!"7 And again, "There is no country under the sun where the prevailing religion—be it Buddhist, Mohammedan, Shinto, Christian or Hebrew - does not resist the compelling facts and clear implications of the facts that modern research has disclosed concerning the origin of life and man under natural law. With persistent efforts, science has cleared itself of those restraints; if education does not do so, it will glaringly fail the intellectual life and leadership of this day." 8
Many big names who represent science in the public eye, such as G. S. Simpson, Julian Huxley, and Muller at present, as well as Haeckel, Huxley, and Spencer of the past, have openly held that religion of any kind is simply the product of man's evolution and so carries no weight in this world today. To them, what Scripture says is supremely unimportant, and is not in any way relevant to our world today.
Certainly, the 1959 symposium on evolution held under the auspices of the University of Chicago underlines the completely materialistic and mechanistic approach of at least a large part of the vocal scientists of our day. The papers presented at this meeting have been published under the editorship of Sol Tax with the title EVOLUTION AFTER DARWIN, and three volumes have been produced. The first is entitled "The Evolution of Life," the second is "The Evolution of Man," and the third is "Issues in Evolution." I find that in volume one the whole question of origins is dealt with solely on a physical basis. Those of you who followed the publicity on the meeting at that time will remember that Huxley was not challenged or criticized by his scientific audience then or in the press later when he held that everything in the universe can be accounted for without introducing the concept of God; that Christianity is destined to be replaced by a new religion based solely on science and man; and that the Bible is pure myth. To summarize Huxley, natural laws are the only operative forces at work in the universe Lower and Higher Superstitions One of the prominent biological and geological thinkers of the day is George Gaylord Simpson, one-time curator of the American Natural History Museum and presently professor of vertebrate paleontology at Harvard University. In an address to the AAS on December 19, 1959. entitled "The World Into Which Darwin Led Us." he made statements such as the following: With reference to a tribe of South American Indians whom he classes as holding to lower superstitions, he says, "It (the lower superstitions) is nevertheless superior in some respects to the higher superstitions celebrated weekly in every hamlet of the United States." He also was happy to note that the steps he briefly traced in the development of lower civilization to higher "have reduced the sway of superstition in the conceptual world of human lives." It is obvious to note that he not only rejects, but views with contempt, any consideration of just the existence of God, much less will he accept any idea of God being the Author of the universe, He heaves the whole of our Christian thought and Biblical theology into the ash can as so much superstition. I have yet to read of any scientist of note taking issue with him at the meeting or in a prominently published article. And, finally, again Julian Huxley in 1960: "God is unnecessary."9 Add the solid Russian scientific phalanx to this group. The church should then accept the results of experiments, factual information observed, the measurements made, but keep in mind there is a difference between accuracy and precision. For example radioactive age determination may involve beautifully precise measurements and demonstrate flawless technique. We may admire the results, agreeing there is that much of this or that radio-active element present in that or this ratio. We may question, however, the degree of accuracy of the age determination, since this rests upon the precise measurements plus the acceptance of a number of assumptions, which may or may not be correct, and whose correctness or not in no way affects the precision of the laboratory measurements, but does affect the accuracy.
The church should accept the factual information the scientist gathers, such as measurements of the amount of radio activity in elements, a new fossil, a new measurements in space, the determination of compounds making up various sera. We accept these as results of the challenge to subdue the earth and have domination over it. However, the extrapolations into the past, the conclusion that because this happened today, the same thing hardened in the past, that because we produced this rock thusly in the laboratory, that is the way it was produced in nature in the past, may or may not be true. To be consistent as a Christian, I feel that those extrapolations that fit into a scheme of a God created world I will accept, while those that do not, I reject. The atheist proceeds the same way. Those extrapolations that fit into his scheme of a world that came into being by itself solely by the operation of determinable natural laws, he accepts, rejecting any extrapolation that calls for a God.
As Christians we believe that God speaks to us in the Scriptures. They deal with God's message to man, given through inspired prophets, apostles, and evangelists. Science deals with the message God has shown in His works in nature. Both messages have the same author; they cannot conflict; both are true. Biblical theology and science talk about the same earth, the same nature, and the same mankind. A Christian will not hold that the Bible is a textbook of science, but this is not to mean that, where the Bible speaks clearly on natural matters, he is to ignore it. Whenever there seems to be a conflict between God's Word and God's nature, it is really a conflict between the speculative theories of the scientist and/or the private interpretations of the Biblical record. Traditionally our church has always taken the position that the Bible is God's verbally inspired Word, which is grounded on the basis of the testimony of Scripture itself:
2 Peter 1:21 "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."For us as Christians then, we are to interpret the Bible in its own light, whenever a so-called contradiction between science and the Bible appears. We are not to accommodate God's Word to the scientific theories of any particular decade. We must be prepared to say "Beyond this point my reason must stop and my faith take over," (e.g., Abraham). Let us heed the admonition in Colossians 2:8, "Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ."
1 Corinthians 14:37 "The things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord."
2 Corinthians 10:5 "To this authority all men, the wise and the simple must submit."
John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me and receiveth not My words hath one that Judgeth him."
John 10:35 "Scripture cannot be broken." (Jesus speaking)
John 17:17 "Thy Word is truth." (Jesus speaking).
Ephesians 6:17 "The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God."
Evidences of God In Nature
by Bolton Davidheiser
Does Nature Have Purpose?
What is wrong with this sentence: "One purpose of food is to act as fuel for our bodies, supplying us with heat and muscular energy"?
When people have been asked what is wrong with this statement, some have sought a complex technical flaw, but the error in this sentence is supposed to be that it says that food has a purpose. It was selected, among other sentences, from various college textbooks by A. J. Bernatowicz of the Department of Botany at the University of Hawaii to illustrate what he considers to be careless writing on the part of the authors. He assumes that most teachers of science agree with him that there is no purpose in the universe except that expressed by ourselves and some animals. His purpose in doing this is to eliminate the idea of the existence of God from college courses in science.
He goes so far as to say that teachers should not say that hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, but should say that hydrogen and oxygen combine and form water, because the word to in this context implies purpose. Although it is quite obvious that hydrogen and oxygen have no purpose in whatever they do, he says that this is not quibbling. He contends that if a teacher makes statements which imply purpose, this establishes a pattern of thought in the minds of the students, and there is no logical stopping place between what seems like quibbling and an outright admission of purpose in the world. He says that teachers should not speak of "natural law" because some students might get the idea that if there is natural law there should also be a law-Giver.
This is a part of the great conspiracy which is in the world to deny the existence of God, and more specifically to attack and to discredit the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ, offering Himself a sacrifice upon the cross.
The Bible takes the existence of God for granted, and it ascribes to Him purpose in creation. In the first chapter of Romans we are told that even the heathen are without excuse for their idolatry, because the existence of God is so clearly manifested in the things which He has made. If the heathen at that time were without excuse, how much more are we without excuse today, when we have knowledge of marvels altogether unknown to them ?
Theory of Evolution
One of the most important factors in the conspiracy to eliminate thoughts of God from the minds of men is the theory of evolution. A century ago Charles Darwin believed that he had explained the wonders of living nature through his natural selection theory, and he convinced the scientists of his day. He postulated that since more plants and animals are produced than can survive to maturity, there is a tendency for those which are best adapted to the environment to survive. Herbert Spencer called this survival of the fittest. It is rather similar to its counterpart, artificial selection, by whicn farmers and animal husbandrymen for centuries had been improving their stocks by selecting for breeding the individuals which possessed the traits which pleased them. This improves a stock in the sense that it becomes more in accord with the farmers desire or better suited to live in a particular environment, but Darwin went beyond this and said that this process explains the production of all forms of life on earth from one or a few simple forms of life.
Sight of a Feather in a Peacock's
However, even Darwin realized it was not so simple. In a letter to Asa Gray, the great American botanist, he said, "I well remember the time when the thought of the eye made me cold an over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncom-fortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's fan, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!'' Why did the sight of a feather in a peacock's tail make him feel sick? Because he could not explain it by his natural selection theory, which was supposed to explain all the marvels of nature. But the thought of an eye no longer made him "cold all over," and he wrote in his "Origin of Species," . . . the difficulty of believing that a perfect complex eye could be found by natural selection, although insuperable to our imagination, should not be considered as subversive to our theory." This is an amazing statement. He says that although we cannot even imagine how an eye could come about through natural selection, this should not be considered as detracting from the plausibility of the theory. A little further on he says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibility have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." His next sentence is: "But I can find no such case." After reading what he said about the eye, it is understandable that he can say this. He had acquired the ability to overlook what he did not wish to see. Moreover, he was safe in saying this because it is very difficult, if it is possible at all, to prove that something, however fantastic, could not happen. It has been postulated that the vertebrate eye evolved from a spot of pigment and that the mammalian breast developed from a sweat gland. Who can prove that this could not be so?
A Man Into a Fly?
Some years ago Hollywood produced a moving picture which was the story of a man who dabbled in atomic physics and turned himself into a fly. The moving picture company offered a prize of $100 to the first person who could prove that it couldn't happen—that a man couldn't turn himself into a fly. A physics teacher in Indianapolis collected the award, although he did not prove anything. He was granted the prize because he "gave the most plausible possibilities." This is no proof at all, and he did not prove that a man can't turn himself into a fly. No one can prove, apart from the authority of the Word of God, that the eye did not evolve from a freckle, but that does not mean that it did.
Why Do Animals Not Have Wheels?
Since the eye and feather in a peacock's tail caused Darwin such distress, it would be a simple matter to make an extensive catalog of well-known things which would cause just as much trouble to explain. He admitted that an organ would have to able to be formed by numerous small successive changes. In this connection a professor in a large university wrote in a recent book that the reason no animals have wheels or propellers may be because a partially-formed wheel would be of no value, and hence natural selection would eliminate it instead of perfecting it. I wrote to him and said that there seemed to be other reasons also why animals do not have wheels. If an animal had wheels, from whence would come the motive power? Would it have wheels in front and legs in back, like an animated wheel barrow, or would it have legs in front and wheels in back, like a horse and cart? An animal with wheels only would have to sort of rollerskate along, and in nature this would hardly be practical because of rough surfaces. By the very nature of a wheel, it would have to rotate freely and hence be free of the body. It could not be connected to the body by blood vessels, nerves, or a digestive system. How would a wheel get nourishment? Where would a wheel have a mouth? What if one wheel died? There are many other questions. The reply I received consisted of a few polite nothings and a statement that he also would be surprised to see a bumblebee fly by with propellers. But if something as impractical as wheels or propellers would not develop because natural selection would eliminate them in an incomplete stage, how about something like the wing of a bat? The ancestors of bats are assumed to have climbed around in the trees. A developing wing which still was incapable of flight would be in the way of proper climbing in the trees, and therefore natural selection would eliminate it. The same may be said for many other structures.
Although a great many structures could be listed which would be very difficult to explain by natural selection, let us consider a few unusual ones. The archer fish shoots water from its mouth with great precision at insects resting on plants up to three or four feet above the water. When the insect falls into the water, the fish takes it for food. This procedure is so remarkable that although it was reported by a member of the Royal Society of London, it was not believed to be true until living fish were received in England forty years later. To explain how a fish could become adapted to perform in this manner would be difficult enough to explain by natural selection, but that is not all. Shooting at insects is merely a hobby with these fish and they obtain most of their food in more conventional ways. In fact, even when insects are abundant on the plants and the fish are still hungry, they soon tire of shooting and look for food in the water. Thus the concept of "survival of the fittest" has no bearing upon the acquisition of this trait.
Mites in Moth Ears
There are some kinds of moths which have very good ears, and they can hear the high-pitched squeeks of bats which we cannot hear. When a bat comes within a hundred feet of them they perform avoiding reactions. There are other moths which fly in the same areas and which do not have ears. Somehow they have survived also. But there is a mite which infests the ears of moths and destroys the ears. Deafened moths would fall more easily as prey to the bats, and this would be equally disasterous for the mites. The mites live on only one of the ears of a moth, leaving the other intact. Up to ten families of mites have been found overcrowding one ear, while not a single mite was present in the other. If transferred to the other ear, they find it quite acceptable. In only two cases out of a thousand parasitized moths investigated were any mites found in the other ear. Perhaps in these cases two mites got on the moth at the same time and neither knew that the other was there. Mites which arrive after another has been there seem to have some way of knowing that they are not the first, and they go to the same ear as their predecessor.
Birds Migrate By Stars
It has been found that some birds migrate by the stars. If a bird of such species is raised in a windowless room so that it never has the opportunity of seeing the sky, it still knows how to migrate by looking at an artificial sky projected upon the ceiling. At migration time these birds were placed, one at a time, in a cage which had a horizonal circular perch, and when the image of the stars was flashed upon the ceiling the birds would sit facing south east, ready to take off in the direction taken by the free birds outside. This was in Germany, and the birds flew south east to the mouth of the Nile, then turned south, following the Nile. As the artificial sky on the ceiling was changed to simulate the sky seen by a bird in actual flight, the birds kept facing south east until the sky matched the real sky over northern Egypt. Then the birds changed their position in the cage, facing south, to follow the Nile. A trick was played upon one bird, and it was shown the sky the way it looked several thousand miles to the east, which was the way the sky would look where it was in Germany about five hours later. In about one minute the bird figured out the situation, and sat on the east side of the circular perch, facing west, ready to fly back to the place where it actually was. As the sky was moved, it stayed in this position until the sky resembled the real sky near its home in Germany, and then it turned to make its way to Egypt. It is marvellous that a little untaught bird brain could have such knowledge of time and astronomy, and if Darwin had known about this, it might have made him hot and cold all over.
Alfred Russell Wallace is considered to be the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the natural selection theory. This theory can be traced back much earlier, but the views of Darwin and Wallace introduced modern evolutionary theory to the world of science in a joint paper read before the Linnaean Society in London a year before Darwin published his Origin of Species. Wallace spent much time living with uncivilized people in South America and among the islands north west of Australia. He was impressed with the fact that these uncivilized people have minds hardly inferior to those of Europeans. He pointed out that their way of life does not require the quality of minds that they possess. Therefore he concluded that their brains could not have evolved by a process of survival of the fittest. Darwin was much displeased with this, and it is said that he wrote a large "No!" on Wallace's paper and underlined it three times. He wrote to Wallace, "If you had not told me you had made these remarks I should have thought they had been added by someone else. I differ grievously from you and am very sorry for it." This was an unscientific approach to the problem. Darwin did not consider Wallace's objection, but merely said that he was sorry that he would have to disagree. To this day Wallace's objection remains unanswered.
New Hebrides' Natives
An illustration which is interesting because it is so unusual will serve to demonstrate this. The natives of an island of the New Hebrides group periodically build a rickety tower of poles bound together by vines on the side of a hill. At various levels of the tower there are platforms like diving boards, and from these platforms men jump headfirst. They are tethered to the tower by vines attached to their ankles. The idea is to touch the ground with the head, and on the first rebound to land on the feet farther up the hill. The ground is dug up to make it as soft as possible, but a small miscalculation would result in a broken neck. It is considered bad form to extend the arms—only the head may touch the ground. The men jump from heights up to eighty feet or more. When they reach the end of their tether the vines stretch and the tower sways. The margin of error in engineering between a successful performance and a broken neck is not very great. These people may not use their minds very wisely, but they do possess very excellent brains.
No Evolution of Woman
The Bible repeatedly declares that God created the heavens and the earth, and the creation of man with human intelligence is specifically mentioned. Some try to deny the creation of man by saying that as the Bible says man was formed from the dust of the ground, this could have been through a long series of animal ancestors. But the Bible says that that first man had no mate, and that the first woman was made for him from a portion of his body taken from his side. The formation of Eve cannot be forced into any theory of evolution. It would be much more honest to say frankly, "I don't believe a word of it," than to try to reconcile Scripture with evolution by saying that Adam could have been made from the dust through a long line of animal ancestors.
Why Do People Still Believe in
Human beings and animals and plants are here. If creation is rejected as an explanation, only evolution is left. Darwin's natural selection theory convinced the scientists of his day, but it had an important weakness in that it did not account for the origin of the differences which nature selected. At the beginning of this century Hugo de Vries allegedly supplied the answer by proposing that mutations—sudden hereditary changes—are the units of evolution. At first this was considered a rival theory, but soon it was combined with Darwin's theory, and together they became the basis of evolution. A generation later it was conceded that the method was inadequate was not known. It was said that Darwin's theory was inadequate as an explanation. When the public heard that the scientists were giving up their belief in Darwinism, it was interpreted to mean that they were giving up their faith in evolution. A few scientists also said this, but most of them strenuously asserted that the fact that they did not know how evolution came about did not mean that they were giving up their belief in evolution itself, and they accused the anti-evolutionists of misquoting them. But in spite of much work, nothing has turned up as an explanation, and the theories of Darwin and De Vries are very much in vogue again, even though they had previously been declared inadequate.
Two Rival Theories
There are two rival theories as to how it all began, the big-bang theory and the steady-state theory. Both start with faith in created matter. According to the big-bang theory a mass of matter exploded and the parts farthest away from the scene of the explosion are still moving the fastest. According to the steady-state theory hydrogen atoms are constantly being created, and from such a start all matter and life have originated. Based upon this assumption, one astronomer has made a rather blasphemous paraphrase of the opening words of the Gospel of John: "in the beginning was the word, and the word was probably hydrogen."
Microscopic one-celled protozoans are not so simple in structure as many people think, and several evolutionists have said that when there was no life on earth higher than the protozoa, evolution had already progressed at least half way to man.
If this is acceptable, when our ancestors were fish we were well along in our evolutionary history. Professor William Etkins of the College of the City of New York is willing to start there in tracing our ancestry. He says, "The human line, in fact, can be traced back only to the fishes .... Man therefore is a modified fish . ... To the fundamental fish, therefore, we owe a limitless debt."
Progressing to the mammals, anyone who knows anything about evolution has heard of the tree shrews, little animals which superficially look something like mice. They are supposed to have been in our ancestral line. William Howells, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University, says of them, "We can plainly see that a tree shrew is a hairy, four-footed, air-breathing, warm-blooded, live-bearing, tree-going fish." He can see this plainly, though it may not be so clear to some of us.
Are we Descendents of Monkeys?
What about monkeys? This is a more delicate subject, and people hesitate to say that according to the theory of evolution we came from monkeys, because there has been a great deal of brainwashing on this subject. We have been told that the evolutionists do not believe this, that Darwin never said such a thing, and that only the ignorant and the uninformed believe that evolution means this. However, this is not true. Many evolutionists have said we came from monkeys. Ralph Linton, Professor of anthropology at Columbia University, says "From everything we know, it seems that our remote ancestors were monkeys." Professor William Straus Jr., the renowned anthropologist and specialist in the primates, wrote an article for The Quarterly Review of Biology in which he gave his reasons for believing that we evolved from monkeys. The reason he went to such lengths to explain this is because he believes, contrary to the opinion of most anthropologists, that we evolved directly from monkeys, and thus bypassed the apes. Most anthropologists believe we evolved by way of the apes. Charles Darwin in his first book about evolution. The Origin of Species, avoided the issue, but when he wrote, The Descent of Man twelve years later he made it very clear that he did believe we evolved from monkeys. He said in the sixth chapter. "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded." He said as plainly as can be that we evolved from the monkeys of the Old World, or Eastern Hemisphere.
As to our alleged evolution from apes, anyone who cares to can go to a public library and make a collection of statements by evolutionists that we evolved from apes, in spite of brain washing to the contrary. George Gaylord Simpson, the great American evolutionist, said in a recent article: "On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be descended from any living ape—a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from any ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape or monkey are defined by popular usage, Man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." Therefore, if anyone tries to tell you that evolutionists do not believe that we descended from monkeys or apes, you may tell him that George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard University says that he is either uninformed or dishonest.
For some reason human beings do not like to be related to monkeys. Missionaries from widely separated areas have reported that when they asked natives why they cut off or file the front teeth of their young people, the answer is: "We do not wish to look like monkeys." On the other hand, the eminent geologist Charles Lyell, who influenced Darwin more than anyone else, refused for many years to accept the theory of evolution, to Darwin's embarrassment and distress. The reason was that he was a gentleman, and he did not like the idea of being related to monkeys.
However, there are those who do not mind. Professor Eiseley says, "I lift up my hands under the light. There is no fur, black upon them, any longer. For a moment I wish there were—for a moment of desperate terror I wish to hurtle backward like a scuttling crab into my evolutionary shell, to be swinging ape or leaping topalid (tree shrew), yes, or sleeping reptile on a stream bank—anything but the thing I have become." Sometimes he would rather be a crocodile lying on a muddy river bank than be head of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania.
Evolution and Christian Faith
In case there is a doubt in anyone's mind about the importance of the problem of the relation of the theory of evolution to Christian faith, let us consider this for a moment. We have referred to the fact that the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the historical account of creation, but this is not all. It opposes the Biblical doctrine of salvation through the atonement of Christ upon the cross. If evolution is true, the fall of man is a myth and we are striving to overcome an imperfect nature inherited from an animal ancestry. If evolution is true there could not have been a historical fall of man, and hence there is no need of a Redeemer. This makes Christ a martyr instead of the Savior. History shows that this is where espousal of the theory of evolution leads. It is a part of the great conspiracy which strives to eliminate the idea of God, and especially the atonement of Christ, from the minds of men.
In this age of ever increasing apostasy, men who give a testimony of holding to conservative Christian views and sign statements of faith whereby they profess to be Bible-believing men, are now telling the Christian public that it is now all right to accept a certain amount of evolution, and indeed that it is impossible to do otherwise. This is accomplished partly through a re-defining of the term evolution. It is said that very small changes or any hereditary change constitutes evolution. Since such changes do occur, one cannot help being an evolutionist in spite of himself. This is something like the case where persons interested in gambling strive to overcome the reluctance of others to gamble by telling them that since gambling is taking a chance, everyone is a gambler in spite of himself. We cannot help taking chances every day. Even going out upon the highway involves taking a chance. The result is that the bad connotations in the word gambling are broken down, and it is easier to get people to gamble. But it is not honest. Gambling is trying to get something for less than its real value by risking the loss of a smaller amount. This has nothing to do with risking one's life on the highway in order to perform honest labor in earning a living.
The Bible tells us that times like these are to come, and being warned we should make an effort to keep ourselves free from the things which oppose the Gospel of Christ instead of trying to see how far we can go along with them. If those who oppose the Gospel exhort their followers to be very careful in the way they write and speak, even to the extent that they should not say that hydrogen and oxygen combine TO (instead of AND) form water, how much more should we be alert to warn Christians where the theory of evolution leads, instead of trying to teach them that they now must accept it to a certain extent! Because of the brainwashing which has been going on from within the ranks of conservative Christianity, Christian laymen now need to be warned more than ever.
One contribution of $5.00 has come in for the Legal Fund. We have found favorable response to our question of last month on establishing a Legal Fund. We will decide at an officers' meeting of the Bible-Science Association on January 29 what to do. Legal action has been taken in Delaware, is being contemplated in El Paso, Texas, and will be taken in Southern California. Right now the group in Southern California believes it has an opportunity to move officials to declare all textbooks which indoctrinate in macro-evolution as illegal. We understand a Christian Lawyers' Association has been wrestling with the problem. We invite comment, suggestions, and support.
Is There Boom For God In Evolution
The Rev. Vernon H. Harley of Corpus Christi, Texas, in connection With the textbook hearings at Austin, Texas on the Biology Science Curriculum Studies texts, wrote: "The confusion came about when representatives of the publishers denied the charge that the books were atheistic, pointing to their own personal Christianity and that of many of the authors . . . From the general tone of the defenders it also appeared as if the protestors were insulting the personal Christianity of the authors and publishers by branding the books atheistic. This was unfortunate, because we readily grant that there are even Christians who consider evolution to be the method employed by God in creating the universe."
Then Harley said: "There is a vast difference between the personal faith of the authors, publishers, defenders of these books, and the idea propounded in the books themselves . . . There is no mention in the books that God might have used evolution to bring matter and life into existence."
Evolution: the Atheist's Substitute
"Is evolution natural?" Harley asked. "On this point we agree with the atheist that it is not. Evolution is the atheist's answer to the question of origins. It is his substitute for religion or God." "Dr. Kirtly Mather states in his 'Science Ponders Religion,' When a theologian accepts evolution as the process used by the Creator, he must be willing to go all the way with it. Not only is it (evolution) an orderly process; it is a continuing one.' Sir Julian Huxley, first Director General of UNESCO, writer in Evolution after Darwin, Chicago University Centennial Series, Vol. 3, page 46, was mentioned by Harley as stating there could be no supernatural in evolution, not even spirit or soul in man.
The Rev. Harley received a letter from K. V. Vanderford of Madrid, Spain, who read in newspapers, reports of the "monkey war" going on in Austin, Texas. He felt there was a place for religion in evolution but only as something that would be gradually eliminated. He did not think the Bible a hoax, but no more than a hypothesis for earlier people.
Finally the Rev. Harley concludes
with: "It is therefore hardly an accident that theistic evolutionists join
the atheist in reading the Bible into the category of 'myth.' Not only
must the creation account of the Bible go, but with it the inviolability
of the law of God and all that is miraculous, the Virgin Birth, the Deity
of Christ, the Vicarious Atonement by Christ, the Resurrection, etc., until
the Bible is of value only as a fallible record of the beliefs of men at
a particular stage in evolution's history. Only fortunate inconsistency
and the grace of God keep many evolutionists from going all the way from
Christianity to atheism."