THE SCIENTISTS AND THE STORY OF CREATION
By R. C. Porter
Confess Their Ignorance of the Mystery—The Proofs of Evolution Still Wanting—Their Hopeless Disagreement Among Themselves
MR. PORTER shows, by his work, that he has devoted much thought and research to the important editorial contributions he is supplying on the subject of evolution and creation. His article next week will present testimony from eminent authorities to show that science is forced, in the last analysis, to accept the idea of a creative power. Editor. WHEN one writes or speaks of the work of creation, on the authority of the Bible, he often meets the questions: "Is the Bible a scientific work? Can we rely upon its statements as scientific facts?" Let us first inquire, What is science? The term comes from the Latin scientia, "knowledge," or scio, "to know." Science is that which is known. It is not theory, speculation, or hypothesis; it is positive knowledge. God, then, is the Author of all true science. Since He is the Creator of all things, He alone has an actual knowledge of all that He has created. See Acts 15:18; Isa. 46:9, 10. In the Bible, the Lord reveals much in reference to the things that He has created. Hence the Bible, first of all, is essential to the understanding of true science. Without it scientists are ignorant of the creative act which lies at the foundation of all truth and all knowledge. Paul gives this warning: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." 1 Tim. 6:20. The Diaglott translates the latter part of this text, "the contradictions of that falsely named knowledge." SCIENTISTS CONFESS THEY CAN NOT SOLVE THE MYSTERY
Scientists confess their inability to know the facts of creation unaided by a divine revelation. Dr. John Tyndall says, "Behind and above and all around scientific knowledge, the real mystery of this world lies unsolved; and as far as we are concerned, it is incapable of solution." ("Fragments of Science," pages 92, 93.) Herbert Spencer, after declaring that a past eternity of matter is inconceivable, adds, "Impossible as it is to think of the actual universe as self-existing, we do but multiply impossibilities of thought by every attempt we make to explain existence." ("First Principles of Philosophy," page 36.) It is only through divine revelation, therefore, that a knowledge of creation is obtainable. UTTERANCES OF PROTESTANT COMMENTATORS
Wyclif translates Gen. 1:1, "In the first made God of naught, heaven and earth." Dr. Gill, commenting on how God created, says, "Caused that to exist which previous to this moment had no being." Dr. Adam Clarke: "Creation must be the work of God, for none but an almighty power could produce something out of nothing." John Calvin: "His meaning is, the world was made out of noth58ing, hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity."
This is in keeping with Paul's statement, "Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." HEATHEN MYTHOLOGY AND FALSE SCIENCE
In proportion as Christians become affected by heathen mythology, they depart from the simple record of creation given in Genesis by inspiration from the God of creation.
Darwin, with a display of that false science against which the Bible bears emphatic warning, presents a false scientific view of the creation of man. He boldly asserts that "man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits and an inhabitant of the old world, . . . in a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists." ("Descent of Man," volume 2, page 382; volume 1, page 226.)
Hugh Miller completes the story as follows: "His great, great, great, great grandfather the sea-pen; his great, great, great grandfather the mussel; his great, great grandfather the herring; his great grandfather the frog; his grandfather the porpoise; his father the monkey." ("Footprints of the Creator," page 319.) NO HISTORICAL RECORD OF EVOLUTION
What scientist has cited a historical record of such an evolution?—Not one. No such development ever occurred in fact. The Darwinian theory of evolution is in direct contradiction of every fact of natural history, positively hostile to the Bible record, and can not be received by those who accept the word of God. Tyndall, as great an English writer as Darwin, says:
"The proofs of evolution are still wanting; the failures have been lamentable; the doctrine is utterly discredited." "For superior knowledge of first things, for clear, plain statements of human origin, for lofty common sense that stamps it as all divine, the Book here asserts itself. Darwin has turned to dust, but 'the word of our God standeth forever.'"
God is the Author of all true science. His word is truth. When it speaks on scientific questions, it reveals scientific truth.
Truly, "the world by wisdom knew not God." 1 Cor. 1:21. There is no concord between Christ and the Darwinian theory of creation. DOES THE BIBLE AGREE WITH SCIENCE?
If this question means, Does the Bible agree with man's imperfect knowledge of science? the answer is, No. If it means, Does the Bible agree with true science? the reply is, Yes. If the Bible were to agree with the present, or had it agreed with the past, imperfect presentation of science, the Bible would thus have been proved inaccurate. The teaching of science is constantly changing. The science of to-day, though imperfect, is vastly different from the science of a few decades ago. On this point Sir Charles Lyell said that estimates had been made as to the rate at which the mud deposit in the River Nile, above some pottery found deep in its bed, had formed, and they maintained that the deposit must have been at least thirty thousand years covering the pottery to this depth. This evidence was given to prove that man had been on the earth thirty thousand years, rather than six thousand years, as the Bible record affirms. When the pottery in question was taken to Rome, it was recognized as some quite modern Roman pottery. Needless to say the Bible did not agree with such science. GEOLOGY AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
Professor Ramsey made it fully ten billion years old. ("Age of the Earth," by Lord Kelvin.)
Eugene Dubois made it about one billion years old. ("Scripture of Truth," Collett, page 246.)
Goodchild made it about seven hundred million years old. (Ibid.)
Sir Charles Lyell made it about four hundred million years old. (Ibid.)
Darwin made it more than three hundred million years old. ("Origin of Species.")
Sir Oliver Lodge made it more than one hundred million years old. (Addresses at City Temple, November 2, 1905.)
Sir George H. Darwin made it at least sixty million years old. ("The Tides," G. H. Darwin.)
Professor Sallas made it about fifty-five million years old. ("Age of the Earth," W. J. Sallas.)
Lord Kelvin made it about twenty-four million years old. ("Age of the Earth," Kelvin.) Dr. Croll made it at most twenty million years old. ("Stellar Evolution.")
Professor Tait made it at most ten million years old. ("Recent Advances in Physical Science.")
Some of these figures are calculated on the basis of the supposed time it took for the red-hot earth to cool, and others upon the basis of geological estimates of creation week. Which of these estimates is scientific truth? No two of them agree, and the Bible disowns them all.
Professor Sayce says: "Surprises are constantly in store for the Assyrian decipherer, and a tiny fragment may suddenly throw new light on a question he had supposed to be settled. In fact, in Assyriology, as in all other branches of science, there is no finality." "We must write our history of Elam all over again. We have been wrong, and the first chapter of Genesis is right after all." ("Scripture of Truth," pages 205, 271.)
J. B. Dimbleby says, "It has been the imperfection of our knowledge which seemed to give rise to a conflict between revelation and science." ("All Past Time.") This is a most timely confession of an absolute truth.
Another writer says, "The first chapter of Genesis contains standards of truth which scientists have not yet been able to reach." ("Bible's Astronomical Chronology.")
Sir Oliver Lodge, in the Hibbert Journal, volume 1, said, "The region of religion and the region of a completed science are one." ("Scripture of Truth," page 307.)
Dr. Cheine: "There can be no antagonism between true science and true religion; they clash only when they are false. Their present antagonism is only another word for our ignorance." (Ibid.)
Sir J. W. Dawson: "Thus the monuments confirm the Jewish records." (Ibid.)
Suppose the Bible had agreed with science before the monumental records were found that have confirmed the Bible statements of historical truth, what would now be its authority? On the contrary, its testimony has been insistent and uncompromising for truth, and to-day it stands vindicated by the monumental records of history. Sir William Thompson, in the North British Review, No. 3, page 222, after giving clear evidence disproving the ideas of popular geology, says: "Now, here is direct opposition between physical astronomy and modern geology as represented by a very large, very influential, and — I may add, in some respects — philosophical and sound body of investigators, constituting perhaps a majority of British geologists. It is quite certain that a mistake has been made — that British popular geology at the present time, is in direct opposition to the principles of natural philosophy."
Prof. G. P. Serviss, of Chicago, and many other astronomers, suppose that the spots seen on the sun prove that the sun is losing its heat, and that they "carry the menace of approaching decrepitude and death to our great orb of day."
Prof. E. Larkin, reasoning from the standpoint of geology, presents an exactly opposite view. He says that "mathematicians have often computed the time that the sun could emit heat and light from its 'beginning.' This word is now almost obsolete, and the time comes out from twenty to twenty-two million years. These determinations are all based on the laws of thermo-dynamics and kinetic energy of matter, discovered to date. But all these findings are swept aside by the indubitable evidences of geology. For the sea has been issuing forth its terrible floods of energy for at least a billion years."
He bases his arguments on the fossils found in ancient rocks, and remarks, "All doctrines are upset by the wing of the butterfly in ancient rock." Scientific literature is now bristling with such expressions as "The sun is eternal," "Sunlight is perpetual," "The rate of our solar radiation does not change," "The sun has been shining forever, and will shine as now through all eternity." ASTRONOMY AND GEOLOGY CLASH
Here we have astronomy claiming the honor of being an "exact science," assuring us that the clearest evidence proves the sun has reached that age of its evolution when its energy and radiation are beginning to wane, and that it will finally grow cold and die. The earth will naturally share a like fate, and all forms of life become extinct. On the other hand, the science of geology, claiming the same distinction of "exactness," assures us that all that astronomy has predicted is "swept aside," and "all doctrines are upset by the wing of the butterfly."
Shall we give up our faith in the Bible, in God, who created59all things, and in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of a fallen race, for theories which are so easily "swept aside," and which are so self-destructive?
Scientists differ as widely in their views concerning this planet as they do about the sun and other planets. Speaking of earthquakes, Professor Serviss remarks: "The phenomena of earthquakes have given wonderful information about the internal state of the globe. All observations show that the shocks of earthquakes are confined to a thin upper shell. They originate at a depth of a few miles, at most." (Chicago Examiner, October 6, 1907.) CHANGING FRONT ON COOLING THEORY
"Prof. T. W. E. David, one of the world's great geologists, of Sydney, Australia, and Professor Milne, one of the world's great earthquake experts, advocate the theory that the earth is 'composed in the manner of an egg, with three different homogeneous substances.' 'The proof,' says Professor David, 'is easy and simple, and the idea is a complete departure from former theories of the earth's interior.'"
Their argument shows that the shocks reach the center of the earth.
"Mr. Fisher, the distinguished geologist, has lately shown that upon the hypothesis that radium is the source of the earth's internal heat, the globe is not cooling off in the interior, as geologists have hitherto always assumed, and thus a fundamental belief of science is completely overset." — Chicago Examiner, November 11, 1907.
This is only a sample of the statements and contradictions which might be produced in great numbers as evidence that the theories of evolutionists are not based on a solid foundation of scientific fact. Are we to receive these contradictory theories as reliable above the unshaken truth of God's word? What was believed by evolutionists a short time ago is abandoned as unreliable to-day. Much that is believed to-day will be discarded to-morrow. Shall a man who does not believe these theories be longer considered unscientific or behind the times?