February 1964

VOL. II;  No. 2;  February 1964


This Newsletter is being mailed from Caldwell, Idaho. There is no subscription price. Contributions for expenses are welcome. It is our desire to distribute this Newsletter to whomever it will be helpful.

-- Walter Lang, Grace Lutheran Church, Caldwell.

Having used all our legal-size paper for the first three issues of the Bible-Science Newsletter, we now give you a new format.  This issue is semi-printed.

A gracious offer was received from the Rev. Paul Otten of Hill City, Minnesota, editor of the new magazine, HOPE. He suggested combining this Newsletter with his magazine. We did not feel we were ready for such a step. Our objective is to disseminate information on Bible-Science developments, and on books and tracts available from the conservative viewpoint, as inexpensively as possible.  This permits us to rely on contributions rather than subscriptions and to distribute the materials more widely.

Response to this Newsletter continues to amaze us.  The last issue was printed in 500 copies, and there are about 100 copies left. More than a hundred requests have come in since the first distribution of that issue. We thank HOPE magazine and others who have featured the work of this Newsletter.

Financial contributions have been sufficient to keep the Newsletter alive and expanding. Each contribution is acknowledged individually, but again we say thank you.  The more support we receive, the more widely we can distribute the Newsletter.

As this is a Newsletter and an exchange, we list the correspondence at the beginning rather than at the end.

As we look over the hundred or more letters received since the last issue, we notice the cosmopolitan character of interest in this field. Requests have come from Canada, Sweden, Egypt, India, Ceylon, Japan and from all parts of the United States. Interest is shown by members of a variety of churches:  The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church, the American Lutheran Church, the Slovak Evangelical Zion Synod, the smaller Norwegian Lutheran Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, and many others. We have had requests from pastors, scientists, educators, students, high-school principals, laymen and laywomen.

We continue to feel a desperate interest on the part of sincere and conservative Christians all over the world for materials to effectively refute the prevailing uniformitarianism in the educational and religious life of the world.

An interesting letter was received from Mrs. Herb Kragel of Hampton, Iowa. She writes:  "As a student enrolled at Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa, I am personally aware of the tremendous damage the acceptance of the 'higher critical' method has left in its wake. Neo-orthodoxy runs rampant on many Lutheran campuses." She is editor of the Lutheran Women's Missionary League quarterly for her District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. She wants to inform others of the Newsletter because as she says: "I feel that God is using you to disclose one of the stumbling-blocks to faith in our day." She mailed us the January 1964 issue of the Iowa East LWML News. In an article on the cover page she writes:  "Have you heard of 'that Great God Budd of academia known as the consensus of scholarly opinion'? Its sacred shrine is 'Higher Criticism' and many of the well-informed theologians of our day worship at this shrine."

Here at Caldwell, Idaho, in a somewhat isolated part of the United States, we held a well-received Circuit Bible Institute, stressing the Bible-Science topic. Feature speaker was Dr. Paul Zimmerman, president of Concordia Junior College at Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dr. Zimmerman is a theologian and a scientist, a member of the Creation Research Committee. He is author of the book "Darwin, Evolution and Creation" and has frequently lectured on this topic at District Conventions.

The Institute ran for five evenings, Monday through Friday, January 27-31.  On Friday evening there was a banquet along with the lecture.  Topics for the lecture were the wonders of God in nature, Darwin and Genesis, the Flood, the age of the earth, and is theistic evolution the answer.

A total of about 550 were in attendance at the Institute, attendance increasing each evening. Professors and students from the local College of Idaho and nearby Northwest Nazarene College and Boise Junior College were present. And they kept on returning. We suggest to other areas to hold a similar Institute. We will gladly supply more information.

We are attempting to develop a Creationist filmstrip with record and are presently awaiting returns on the prospectus.  This may take some time, but advance interest shows it will be well received. We shall keep our readers informed.

In the meantime we have continued requests for the ten Bible-Science Moody Institute filmstrips we have on hand, including tape commentary. We shall continue loaning these upon request.

This editor has been working closely with the Creation Research Committee which is a group of scientists, many of them formerly associated with the American Scientific Affiliation. Voting membership in this body is restricted to persons having a master's degree in science or more, or its equivalent in experience.  Their Annual is being published at this time, and they plan to put out Quarterlies.

This group has opened a non-voting membership to persons contributing $5.00. This contribution entitles one to the Annual and to the Quarterlies,  Chairman is Dr. Walter E. Lammerts, in Liver-more, California.  Treasurer is Mr. Wilbert Rusch, Sr., in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

By these initials we refer to Dr. O.P. Kretzmann, president of Valparaiso University. He recently wrote on the subject of evolution in his campus commentary (January-1964). He stressed the fact that scientists think differently from theologians. To theologians "evolution" is a bad word; to the scientist "creation" is a bad word. He suggested using the word "theistic evolution" to help both sides. This editor in a letter to Dr. Kretzmann pointed out that "theistic evolution" is a bad word to conservative scientists and to theologians because it suggests dangerous compromise.

Dr. Kretzmann then implied there are problems for scientists and theologians in fossils, succession of rock layers, apparent similarities in body structure of animals and men, and evidences of long processes of decay of radioactive materials in the earth. It was pointed out to him the latest research in science has demonstrated there are no problems in these areas mentioned and accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible, except perhaps in radioactive measurement of the age of rocks. Even in this field scientists must work with too many unknown factors to be dogmatic.

It was also pointed out to Dr. Kretzmann that creationists can allow evolution within kinds and there is evidence for this. The creationist can say that God created the primordial substance first, as the word "create" in Genesis 1:1 shows, and then possibly make other things from this, as the words: "make", "let there be", "bring forth", and "form" indicate.

It was indicated to the president of Valparaiso University that this school would fulfill the highest dreams for a Christian school if it were to militantly set itself to the task of bringing about a reformation in the educational world, away from uniformitarianism and toward more sound creationism.

O.P. replied with a gracious answer and indicated the school is grappling with the problems involved.

The last issue of the Newsletter contained a listing of available books taken from a booklet by Dr. David Warriner, in  East Lansing, Michigan. Here are more titles supplied by him.
EVOLUTION OR CREATION - M.R. DeHaan Radio Bible Class, from Grand Rapids, Michigan.  (1962)
GENESIS AND EVOLUTION - M. DeHaan Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1962)
SCIENTISM, MAN, AND RELIGION -D.R.G. Owen, Westminster Press, Philadelphia (1952)  A scholar and theologian asserts the grave danger in our modern society from a misapplication of scientific principles.
TWELVE BRIDGES NO EVOLUTIONIST HAS EVER CROSSED - O.E. Sanden. Back to the Bible Publishers, from Lincoln, Nebraska.  (1961)
EVOLUTION, SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED -International Christian Crusade, in Toronto, Canada.  (15th edition, 1963). The majority of authors quoted are evolutionists.  Their testimony presents the weakness of the theory.
CREATION OR EVOLUTION? - David D. Riegle, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1962). Riegle, an Illinois teacher, has written in the light of his close association with emphasis on evolution in the public schools.

The Newsletter is preparing a tract entitled THE CREATIONIST'S LIBRARY. Look for more announcements regarding this.

Ralph H. Foster, M.D. of Tumwater, Washington sent a clipping of SCIENCE FORTNIGHTLY, January 1964. In it Gordon J.F. MacDonald, a geophysics instructor at the University of California in Los Angeles, established the presence of sub-continental structures extending to depths calculated to be at least 300 miles. We can no longer imagine thin continental blocks sailing over a fluid mantle, he says. His assertion is based on the average equality of mass and heat flow. He feels this argues for dominant vertical segregation of material in continent formation. He feels that large-scale horizontal convection transport has played only a minor role.

A reprint of a debate by the now deceased Harry Rimmer and Dr. W.B. Riley of Minneapolis was sent us by Dr. David Warriner. These may be obtained from Dr. Warriner. It lists twelve arguments for Creationism:

1.  The word "yom" (day) always means twenty-four hours in the Bible except where the context clearly indicates otherwise. of. Genesis 30:11. Genesis 4:3; Genesis 26:8; Leviticus 20:15.
2. The word "yom" is found 1480 times in the Hebrew text and is translated "day" 1181 times by King James translators.
3. Wherever the word "yom" is preceded by a numerical article we are forced to accept it as a literal day. Genesis 7:10; Genesis 8:4; Genesis 8:40.
4. There can be a day without the sun.
5.  The wording of the text in Genesis 1 is such that it demands something be made right now. Some might find a time period in the word "day", but there is no time period in "God said, let there be light, there was light." Genesis 1:3.
6. God could have made everything that it says He made in any one of the six days in a twenty-four hour period.
7. God did not create all species in twenty-four hours, only original kinds. He permitted development of species. This helps explain the existence of many kinds of fossils.
8. Evolutionists can and do make errors. Mistakes in the Bible have never been proved.
9. Moses intended to convey the idea of a natural day.
10. Hebrews 4:4 calls the six days "hemera", the Greek word for a solar day, and not "aeon", the Greek word for periods.
11. Exodus 20:11 says everything was made in six days, and for this reason the Jews should work six days and rest on the seventh. Reference is clearly to natural days.
12. If the days were geological periods, plants lived some five hundred thousand years before the sun existed.
"Take another look at the records of our God, both in his revealed Word and in his created world, and your doubts will disappear like the mists of the morning. Read again the first two chapters of Genesis. The Bible statement of creation is true science, and any conflicting theory must be false. The whole Bible - creation and redemption - is God's revelation to man. This is the basis of our faith." - Wm. J. Tinkle


Your editor recently had opportunity to spend a week with Dr. Zimmerman when the latter was in Caldwell, Idaho for a Bible Institute. In addition to the book which he has edited, Dr. Zimmerman has published numerous other works. We herewith summarize some of these materials. Most of it is taken from the July 1953 issue of the Concordia Theological Monthly, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri and from an essay delivered by Dr. Zimmerman last year at the Southern California District Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Dr. Zimmerman quotes from Fred Hoyle in Harper's Magazine (1950 and 1951): "Here we are in this fantastic universe with scarcely a clue as to whether our existence has any real significance. No wonder that many people feel the need for some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they become very angry with people like me who say that this security is illusory.  ... In their Christian anxiety to avoid the notion that death is the complete end of our existence, they suggest what is to me an equally horrible alternative ... What the Christians offer me is an eternity of frustration." To this Zimmerman says in the 1953 CTM article; "The Christian pastor and teacher is thus confronted with a fresh and vigorous attack by materialists, on the Bible and the faith of his people. In the name of science, theories are being advanced to show how one can account for the universe and all its wondrous heavenly bodies without acknowledging the hand of the Creator."

Dr. Zimmerman quotes Anthony Standen's "Science Is a Sacred Cow" and indicates that science has been made a sacred cow by many, but it still has its feet of clay. He mentions that scientists have insisted for a long time that it took millions of years to make oil - and then Dr. Paul Smith, Jr. of Standard Oil Company announced that oil is even now being formed in appreciable amounts in offshore muck and silt. He demonstrated this by using the newly developed techniques of chromatography and. radio-carbon dating. At one time scientists claimed they had found a new element in the sun because the spectral lines were different from any of the known elements. Chemists looking into this found the mysterious lines were simply a mixture of the lines of oxygen and nitrogen in an ionized or highly excited state. At one time we were told the world was five trillion years old. Now we are told it is two or four billion - quite a difference. In November of 1952, Gilcas while working for the United States Air Force, stated measurements from Neptune and Uranus indicated there were no variations in solar energy. Dr. Abbot formerly with the Smithsonian Institute says observations on earth show a five percent variation in solar output.  This is proof science is not a sacred cow. Science makes many mistakes.

In discussing theories that the sun and planets were formed by gases cooling, condensing and bulging, Zimmerman quotes from Spitzer and Russell. In March 1940 H.N. Russell published the findings of Dr. Spitzer of Harvard.  Their findings indicate that expansion would win the race between the cooling of hot gas and its expansion. Russell states:  "The disparity between these two numbers is so great that there is no room for doubt that an actual filament of gas would expand so fast it would never be able to check itself long before cooling produced any perceptible effect." G. Kuiper analyzing Wezaecker's theory (from Max Planck Institute in Goettingen, Germany) disputes that planets were formed from gases condensing and being formed when roller-bearing eddies were set up in space. He proves that the condensation process, if it took place at all, would require thirty million years to form a small body of the size of our moon. Kuiper goes on to prove that in one-third of this time the nebular would have diffused itself into outer space, effectively stopping the condensation process. Kuiper also shows that dust will not stick together when particles collide in air or space. Even very cold snow or hail does not combine in the air. Kuiper further points out that vortices must remain intact during the entire period of planetary accretion, if this "roller-bearing" system of eddies and gas condensing is to be true. He does not think these vortices would have remained even ten to one hundred years, but it is claimed they remained intact millions of years according to this system.

If the theories of Weizaecker, Whipple and Spitzer, all dealing with some form of condensing and solidifying of gases in space in the process of hundreds of millions of years were true, then why do eleven of the thirty-three moons go backward in space? This is one problem evolutionists cannot answer satisfactorily.

One of the more famous statements of Dr. Zimmerman is found in the 1953 C.T.M. article:  "This shows clearly what cosmogonical theorizing is. It is pood, clean fun for an astronomer, a mathematician, a chemist, a physicist. It is an exercise in working out a logical scheme of proposed events which would lead to the formation of the earth and the solar system as we find them now. It is a game, the rules of which are observed physical and chemical laws. But even if one wins the game by devising a perfect system that accounts for every detail of the properties of the heavenly bodies, he still will not have proved that things did, in fact, take place as he deduced they might have."

In analyzing the theories of Dr. Harold Urey of Chicago University, who believes in a "cold" process of formation of planets, an objection is raised as to why everything is not sun. If the sun makes up 99 6/7% of the mass of our universe, why did not that paltry one-seventh percent also fall into the main body? This has never been satisfactorily answered.

Dr. Zimmerman quotes from Fred Hoyle of Cambridge who points out that the composition of the earth is so vastly different from that of the sun and other planets, the earth could not have been torn out of or thrown off from the sun, as many try to prove. Hoyle is quoted thus: "the sun ... is normal and the earth .... is the freak. The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece."

In discussing Urey's theory that complex materials that make up living cells synthesized themselves from simple molecules of water, marsh gas, and carbon dioxide under the influence of ultraviolet light, Zimmerman points out that ultraviolet light does cause certain chemical reactions and recombinations. But these are like a child building a tower of blocks over against the problem of the construction of an atomic-powered submarine, when you compare these simple compounds of hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen with the complex protein molecules which are the simplest parts of living things but are nonetheless so complicated that the most skillful chemist of our modern day is still not able to synthesize them. Living cells contain a fantastically complicated organization, including the complex nucleic acids which have the ability to reproduce themselves. Nor would the synthesis of one protein or of one cell be enough. The extraordinary process would have to repeat itself again and again.

Pierre Lecomte Du Nouy's two books "Human Destiny" and "The Road to Reason" (available from Longmans and Green, New York, 1947-1948), indicate the mathematical odds against life coming into existence on its own initiative. Zimmerman points out that while Urey was propounding this theory, he had one lone graduate student bombarding a gaseous mixture of methane, water vapor, and ammonia with ultraviolet light to see what would happen. He had propounded an elaborate theory without having yet done the elemental laboratory work necessary to establish the theory, putting the cart before the horse. This is unscientific.

Zimmerman shows that Fred Hoyle first began with an idea of a big bang, that everything was created by a big bang. And then he contradicted himself by speaking of continuous creation. Today he is known chiefly for his support of continuous creation. Writing of Hoyle in the July 1951 "American Scientist", Kirtley Mather writes: "Where does the created material come from? It does not come from anywhere. Material appears - it is treated. At one time the various atoms composing the material do not exist, and at a later time they do. This may seem a very strange idea, and I agree that it is, but in science it does not matter how strange an idea may seem so long as it works - that is to say, so long as the idea can be expressed in a precise form and so long as its consequences are found to be in agreement with observation ... continuous creation is an additional assumption ... but it only replaces a hypothesis that lies concealed in the older theories which assume ... that the whole of the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past .... So we see that the universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged."

Martin Johnson of Birmingham University, England, discusses Hoyle's continuous creation in the "American Scientist", July 1951. He shows that everyone, scientist and philosopher alike, is driven to an aesthetic or imaginative choice among three inconceivables - the start of space, of time, or of matter." He states that Hoyle has chosen to work with the start of matter. The reason Hoyle speaks of continuous or gradual creation rather than instantaneous creation is purely subjective. Johnson points out continuous creation cannot be proved.

We like the statement of Dr. Zimmerman in the 1953 C.T.M. article:  "Furthermore it is apparent that anyone who takes upon himself the problem of the origin of the earth and the universe is inevitably driven to make certain assumptions that are no more susceptible of direct proof than the Genesis account of creation. One should not be deceived by complicated mathematics and other badges of scientific respectability. No theory is better or stronger than its assumptions. Without good grounds for accepting the assumptions, the whole structure hangs suspended in the sky by the thread of imagination."

Zimmerman refers to Karl Heim University of Tuebingen, Germany,  in "Die Wandlung im naturwissenschaftlichen Weltbild,"  Hamburg, Furche-Verlag (1951) He demonstrates how three basic tenets of materialism; the object, absolute time and space, and causality, have been severely shaken by modern physics. In the 1953 C.T.M. article Zimmerman states: "From all of this a Christian may draw the conclusion that he may with truth tell people that current materialistic propaganda regarding cosmological theories is just that - propaganda, unsunported by fact! The Biblical account of creation by Almighty God has not been disproved by science. It remains today, even from the viewpoint of reason, I believe, the most logical, believable account of the beginning of the earth and the rest of the universe." (Psalm 19:1)

In an essay delivered in 1963 at the Southern California District Convention, Dr. Zimmerman holds in error those who claim it makes little difference to one's Christian faith which theory of creation he accepts. He states that we need the Bible account of creation to support the rule and power of God (Psalm 119:90-91). We need the Bible position on creation to understand the omnipresence and omnipotence of God, as Nehemiah states when he speaks of the Lord Who made "heaven of heavens"  (Nehemiah 9:6). We need the Bible position on creation to support the eternity of God (Psalm 90 and Psalm 102:25). We need Bible creation to support the omniscience of God, who makes and controls all things, as God's wisdom is described in Proverbs 3:19 and Proverbs 8.

We need Bible creation to know why we are here (Zechariah 12:1 and Malachi 2:10). We need Bible creation to support God's right to punish sin (Amos 4:11-13 and Jeremiah 51:14-15). We need Bible creation to support God's forgiveness (Psalm 103:13, Jeremiah 31:34-35, Psalm 33 and Psalm 124). We need Bible creation to support Christian faith.  (2 Corinthians 4:6). We need Bible creation to support missions (Isaiah 42:5). We need Bible creation for stewardship (Psalm 50:10). We need Bible creation to know Jesus as Creator (1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2, and John 1:1-4). We need Bible creation to understand time and God as creator of time (Revelation 10:6). We need Bible creation to know for a surety there is a God (Psalm 14, Psalm 53, Acts 14:15-17. We need Bible creation to properly praise God (Revelation 4:11).

Dr. Zimmerman continues:  "it is true that the way in which we look at Genesis may also be the way in which we look at the rest of the Bible.  There is a temptation on the part of many to deny that there can be such a thing as anything supernatural, something beyond that which we can lay our hands on and study with what we normally call science.  And hence such things as miracles, both Old and New Testament, are also ruled out with the same bias of what is known as naturalism." In a recent interview Dr. Paul Tillich, University of Chicago theological professor, called for a new Protestant reformation. He stated this reformation ought to take the direction of recognizing that many of the Bible's most graphic stories are pure myth. Among them he included the stories of Genesis, the Fall, the Flood, the exodus from Egypt, the Virgin Birth, Christ's miracles, Christ's resurrection and ascension.

When queried specifically about the virgin birth. Dr. Tillich passed it aside as a complete symbolism and described the empty tomb of Christ on Easter day as a 'poetic' rationalization. We find that this man has adopted a false philosophy which is neither science nor Christian. Our concern ought to be that in wrestling with the problem of creation and its proper scriptural and scientific interpretation, we do not fall into this trap of so treating Scripture that we are tempted to go throughout Scripture and to remove from it its wonder, its greatness, that which can be grasped only be faith, that which is certainly not in the realm of science.  To do this would be to deny that the greatest of all miracles, the work of Christ Himself, and to lose that Christ and to lose our eternal salvation."

Dr. Zimmerman goes into this at length in his essay.  There is a legitimate kind of evolution, which allows a development within the kinds, by the species. Noah did not take into the ark eight or nine thousand types of horses. Perhaps there were not more than seven, and from these developed all the types known today. There is also organic evolution, which means there should be a development from amoeba to man. And there is inorganic evolution, which means there is supposed to be a development from a gas to a sun, to planets, to our earth, and to substances on the earth.

Reference is made by Dr. Zimmerman to Paul Lemoine, professor at a French Museum, who wrote "How Valid Are the Theories of Evolution?" Lemoine quotes the French scientist Guyenot: "Natural selection, contrary to that which Darwin thought, has the effect of conserving the limits of variability of species. Sexual selection is under the shadow of ridicule." He refers to Dr. C.P. Martin McGill of the University, of Canada, who criticizes the evolutionists. Also referred to Dr. W.R. Thompson, director of Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control of Ottawa, Canada, who introduced a re-publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species", showing the fragile towers of hypotheses based upon hypotheses in evolution, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion. Reference is made to Douglas Dewar, British ornithologist, author of "Is Evolution Proved?" and "The Transformist Illusion". He produces telling evidence against the evolutionary theory and speaks of a transformist illusion.

Another reference is to Everett C. Olson, professor of geology at the University of Chicago, who is frank enough to point out in volume's prepared for the centennial of Darwin, that all is not as rosy as enthusiastic advocates of evolution would have the non-scientific public believe. Zimmerman refers also to Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, a German scientist, who wrote "Problems of Life" and who says that workers are reluctant to believe the complexity of the cell could come by chance, when the loss of even one member in the cell may make it degenerate into a cancer cell. Von Bertalanffy states the theory of evolution has been so amended, and patched up in modern times that it can accommodate any data for or against it without blinking an eye.  Dr. Silvio Fiola, Department of Pathology, Columbia University, is referred to. Writing in "Science", March 16, 1962, he states that not a single step in the evolutionary mechanism has been clarified since Darwin's time.

Today there are living forms of life which evolutionists say should be only fossils. One of these is the Tuatara, a dragon-like reptile. Not one bone of this type of reptile known as "beakhead" has been found since the 'Cretaceous period, supposedly some 135 million years ago. Another recently found living fossil is the ceolecanth, a fish which left many fossils in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata, 135-230 million years ago. Yet several living specimens have been caught.

"The great coal deposits of the earth are generally supposed to have formed millions of years ago from the vegetation in great swamps. Yet Otto Stutzer, in his authoritative 'Geology of Coal' reports that the Mining Academy in Freiburg, Germany, has in its museum a puzzling human skull composed of brown-coal and manganoferous and phosphatic limonite."

Found together at Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas, as reported by Roland T. Bird, Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History (1939). Each footprint was fifteen inches long.

Dr. Wilbur Burroughs, Professor of Geology, Berea College, found twelve footprints, shaped like human feet, nine and one-half inches long and six inches wide, in a sand-stone formation supposedly belonging to the coal age, 250 million years ago. These were found twelve miles southeast of Berea, Kentucky.

A Swedish scientist, author of "Synthetische Artbildung" (1953), Verlag Cwk Gleerup, states: "Has there really been an evolution? Are the proofs of its occurrence tenable? After a detailed and comprehensive review of the facts we have been forced to give the answer: No! Neither a recent or a paleohistorical evolution can be empirically demonstrated."

Dr. Zimmerman states there are ten different classifications of things mentioned in Genesis One as being created in the six days: Vegetation, plants, trees on the third day. Sea monsters, swarms of living creatures in the waters, and birds on the fifth day. Cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the earth and man on the sixth day.

Since the word "in the beginning" has no article, we cannot take it as a genitive or a construct, for then attention is centered on the second verse and no reason appears for mentioning "the beginning" at all. Leupold is quoted who is author of "Exposition of Genesis".
Zimmerman states: "The significance of all this is that here in Genesis One, in the references to the heavens and to the firmament, we have something which is easily understood and something which is purified from the false concepts of the science of that day. Here again the guiding hand of the inspiring Holy Spirit is most evident. Here again there is no room for saying there is conflict between science and the Bible. For nothing we know of modern cosmology today is contradicted by anything that Scripture says."

Dr. Tilly Edinger of Harvard is quoted from Loren Eseley's "The Immense Journey", Time, New York (1962):  "The brain of Homo Sapiens has not evolved from the brain it is compared with by comparative anatomy; it developed within the Hominidae, at a late stage of the evolution of this family whose other species are all extinct." Thus man's ancestry always leads us to man. An evolutionary link with the animal has not been established.

In Matthew 19:4 Jesus refers to marriage and indicates that God made them male and female. Romans 5:12 states that as by one man sin came into the world, so by one is forgiveness. Paul regards Adam as a real being. 1 Corinthians 11:9 shows that man and woman were created, as St. Paul indicates when establishing the position of women in relation to men. In Acts 17:22 St. Paul tells the Athenians "God Who made the world and everything in it, being the Lord of Heaven and earth" ... And He made from one every nation of men to live on the face of the earth  ... Adam is the father of all. Hebrews 11:3 says that things seen are not made of things seen.

According to Dr. Zimmerman theistic evolution is not the answer. Leading evolutionists spurn every type of supernaturalism as showing a clinging to an outmoded way of thought as foreign to the basic approach of evolution which depends on chance and natural selection. Kirtley Manner in "Science Ponders Religion", Appleton Century Crofts, Inc., New York (1960), indicates that 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 an orderly process; it is a continuing one. The golden age for man, Manner says, if any, is in the future, not in the past. He also insists the creative process of evolution is not to be interrupted by any supernatural intervention. He insists that the spiritual aspects of the life of man are just as surely a product of the processes called evolution as are his brain and nervous system.

Zimmerman quotes:  "Man has risen, not fallen. He has risen from the swamp. Excuse his vicious, animal traits. In time the evolutionary process will aid him to overcome these. He needs no Savior." This is the logical conclusion of evolution. This is not science.  It is faith, philosophy and it is error. It is contrary both to the Spirit and the Letter of the Holy Scriptures.

    GENESIS 1:3
"AND GOD SAID"  Some say "then God said" which is possible. We notice the word "God" is used in verse 1 for the Father, in verse 2 for the Spirit and in verse 3 for Jesus. According to John 1: 1-3 and verse 14 we learn the Word was with God, was God, made the world, became flesh, tabernacled among us.  This Word is Jesus.  "And God said" in verse 3 refers to Jesus.

The question is whether this Word of God is Jesus only in His Person or is also the spoken and written Word. Some claiming to make the Bible more powerful say the Word of God is Jesus only in His Person. We contend the Bible is without error and the Word of God means also the written Word of the Bible as well as the person of Jesus.

 (to be continued in next issue)

MAIN:  www.creationism.org