Literal Interpretation of the Bible
Divine Design and Purpose in Nature
A Universal Noachian Flood
Christ; God and Man;
Our Only Savior
This Newsletter distributed to those who request it -- Also in Bulk. It is financed by contributors.
-- Walter Lang, Grace Lutheran Church, Caldwell.
As this issue of the Bible-Science Newsletter is being prepared, our mailing list stands at about 650. We are doubling the highest number previously issued in order to make distribution to District conventions of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. We thank all who are aiding in this distribution.
More and more requests are coming in - for copies of this Newsletter to be placed in libraries. We encourage readers to send us names and addresses of libraries which would welcome the Newsletter. You might contact libraries showing them the list of books at the end of this issue: Books may be obtained at library discounts from the Bible-Science Newsletter.
The body of creationist material
is growing every day. We want to be of service in getting this information
to those who want it.
One pastor has requested suggestions for his fall classes in order to counteract the evolutionism thrust upon high schoolers. We suggested some of the books listed at the end of this issue.
Among many others we are now exchanging with the Lutheran Scholar and the Dan Smoot Report.
More and more interest in the creationist movement is being shown by young people. Glen Gersmehl of Napoleon, Ohio is showing tremendous enthusiasm and has purchased a number of books and tracts.
The Rev. Mark Bartling being graduated from the seminary at Springfield, Illinois and serving as assistant pastor at Crete, Illinois, offers to aid the cause of Creationism in the Chicago area.
Arthur Raske of Albany, California, about to receive his doctorate, has shown a great deal of interest. He has informed us of Gordon Ginn who has been speaking on radio in favor of Creationism.
A mother and three high school freshmen recently came into our office deeply disturbed by the flagrant attacks on the Christian religion and on the Book of Genesis by a biology teacher. They were given materials.
Frequently young people ask what can be done to stop the attacks on the Christian religion carried on in the name of evolutionism. We feel a good thing is to organize creationist or Bible-Science groups to help in encouraging each other.
One of the first churches to do something about the creationist problem in an organized way is the Seventh Day Adventist church. For this purpose a Geoscience Institute has been established at their Andrews University at Berrien Springs, Michigan. Dr. Frank L. Marsh, a well known writer for Creationism, is with them as is also R.M. Ritland, writer of articles in a Seventh Day Adventist magazine.
SOCIETY ANNUAL - 1964
Most of this issue of the Bible-Science Newsletter will be devoted to a resume of the Annual of the Creation Research Society. Each of its excellent articles will be extensively reviewed. As a result many other fine articles are being postponed for future issues. We encourage interest and membership in the Creation Research Society. Its first Annual may be obtained for a $5.00 membership fee. This membership will also include Quarterlies to be issued. Voting membership is restricted to persons holding a M.S. degree or more, others are non-voting members. Write to the Society's treasurer, Professor Wilbert Rusch, in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Reviews of this Annual have been mailed to the Lutheran News, Christian Victory Magazine, Christianity Today, Lutheran Witness, Concordia Theological Monthly, Lutheran Layman, Christian Schools Magazine, Confessional Lutheran, and Zion Magazine. We are prepared to send a review of this fine publication to other magazines. It is an excellent, scientific publication.
The other day we listened to a tape recording in which a pastor of a Christian church insisted there were mistakes in the Bible. He based his claim on the fact that the various Biblical accounts of the resurrection differ in details on the number of women and angels present. Apparently the more a person is influenced by Darwinian evolution, the more he attempts to judge by human reason and is inclined to find errors in Scripture. Some helpful explanations for apparent errors are given by Theodore L. Handrich, principal of a Lutheran school at Glencoe, Minnesota.
1. Does the Bible in Isaiah 42:5 and Isaiah 44:24 teach the earth is flat? The expression "spread forth" appears to mean "spread out thin" like butter or other soft substance. The only other passage in which this expression is used is in II Samuel 22:43 where we are told that God stamped David's enemies as the mire of the street "and did spread them abroad". So God "spread forth" the "earth" or land over the bedrock, and the shape of our planet has nothing to do with it.
2. Do Psalm 75:3 and other passages teach the earth actually rests upon pillars? This is a poetic metaphor and no more meant literally than the horn of the wicked in the verse immediately following.
3. In John 12:24 a kernel of wheat is said to die in the ground before it grows. This is true relative to a concept of "kernel". A kernel housing the embryo or germ may be compared to a woman with child. The mother may sometimes die during labor, but the child survives. So the "kernel" dies, but the embryo survives and grows.
4. In Deuteronomy 14:18 the bat is included with the birds. The explanation that there should be a period before "and the bat", and this phrase connected with the following verse which begins with "and", is not sufficient. This would not apply in Leviticus 11:19-20 where the same expression occurs, but no connecting word. This passage is true and factual - relative to a definition. According to the marginal reading Genesis 7:14 would end: "and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every wing". So all winged things seem to be included in the word translated "bird". That all birds have feathers and lay eggs is true only relative to a modern system of classification.
5. In Leviticus 11:20 flying insects are defined as "fowls that creep, going upon all four". According to verse 22 this includes locusts and beetles. It is a scientific fact that these insects, as all insects do, have six limbs. Verse 23 adds "which have four feet". I suspect a Hebrew idiom here meaning to walk in a prone position on four or more legs. We have a somewhat similar idiom when we say "Luther stood foursquare upon the Gospel".
6. In Deuteronomy 14:7 and in Leviticus 4:11-12 the hare and the coney (hyrax) are listed among the animals which chew their cud. These animals, if the identification is correct, do not chew the cud; they only appear to be doing so. It is difficult to find an explanation making this Biblical statement strictly true. The essential meaning is true. Ruminants were to be approved for human consumption, and these animals are not ruminants and therefore were to be excluded.
TO ANNUAL OF
CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY
This is written by the chairman of the Society, Dr. Walter E. Lammerts (geneticist) of Livermore, California. He tells of his two daughters attending high school and reporting their teachers' claim that all scientists believed in Darwinian evolution. He asserted he was one scientist who did not, and upon checking found many others who did not believe this theory. This began his activity which led to the formation of the Creation Research Society.
In this introduction Dr. Lammerts tells how at the June 1963 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation the first steps were taken to form this new society. Further progress was made at a meeting held at the home of Dr. John J. Grebe in Midland, Michigan.
Also in this introduction Dr. Lammerts points to a long line of scientists who hold to Creationism. Creationism is sound not only from the viewpoint of the Bible, but also from the standpoint of science and has a far better tradition than does Darwinian evolution.
OF CREATION CONCEPTS
This article in the Annual of the Creation Research Society was written by Dr. John N. Moore of Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Mostly he lists books which promote the creation viewpoint and quotes from them and gives quotations showing the weakness of the Darwinian evolutionary viewpoint, Moore's listing is more technical and comprehensive than the listing of this Newsletter. Many are magazine articles and many are out of print.
Mention is made of John W. Draper, Andrew D, White and James Y. Simpson, who in discussing the conflict between science and religion generally favor science and who attempt to establish authority of science over religion. Protesting this type of evolution are Sir Ambrose Fleming, Sir Charles Marston, Dr. Arthur C. Custance of England and Canada. Listed are many articles in the Journal of Transactions of the Victoria Institute in England, favoring Creationism.
Included in a listing of those who attempt to compromise Christianity with evolution are T. Dobzhansky, B. Glass, J. Huxley, A.O. Lovejoy, G.C. Simpson, S. Tax, Jo Dawson, W. Bateson, F. Bettex, L. Burbank, V.L. Kellogg, J.P. Lotsy, A.S. Berg, L.T. Moore, G.B. O'Toole, and F.B. Summer. Mention is also made of L. Agassiz, a famous zoologist, who resisted Darwinism.
Following are a number of points which Moore makes from the writings of these distinguished scientists regarding Darwinian evolution.
1. Theories of organic evolution do not explain adequately the gap between inorganic and organic organization.THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CREATION STUDY
2. Neither do these theories really explain the gaps between groups, where intermediate forms are missing.
3. Theories of evolution do not explain gaps as they should between animal and human behavior.
4. The argument in a. circle should be pointed out - taxonomists refer to palaeontologists, who refer to geologists, who refer to taxonomists for support of each other's positions. Moore states: "Uniformitarianism simply has been assumed, not proved; catastrophism simply has been denied, not refuted."
5. There has been much confusion by making species and kind one and the same thing. Strictly speaking, evolution should be a development from kind to kind. Evolutionists have confused the issue by pointing to development of species within the kind, using this to attempt proof of development from kind to kind. This is not proof.
He points to more than sixty-five passages from the Old and New Testaments which refer to the doctrine of creation, All of them are written on the basis of Genesis One and Two and presuppose it. Jesus refers to Genesis and. Paul builds on it. "The repeated references to creation in the Scriptures show us how important the Holy Spirit thought it to be."
The relationship the Bible says should exist between _God and man depends on creation. We owe God honor and worship because He created us. When God speaks, we are not to question, but obey, because He made us. We are thus to obey the Ten Commandments, because God said so, not because they are merely socially acceptable. I cannot say adultery is wrong only because it brings on pregnancy. It is wrong because the Creator has made it wrong.
Dr. Klotz says that strict causal determinism developed after Newton. Though Newton was a Christian, he believed the day of miracles was past. This led to the mechanistic attitude of the end of the last century.
Today, because Heisenberg proved that in the atom, things do not follow by strict cause and effect, establishing his law of indeterminism, things have changed. Many still feel that everything follows on cause and effect, though not as rigorously. This attitude of strict cause and effect removes human responsibility in the moral realm, is a gloomy philosophy and has less and less support in science. Not only as Christians but as scientists it is well to know that God directs everything for our good and the doctrine of creation supports this.
Over against Einstein's relativity we Christians must hold to absolute truth. This theory of relativity has done much for science, and so people jump to the conclusion it can help us with God. But God is not relatively holy. He is absolutely holy. God is not relatively wise, He is omniscient. God is not relatively powerful. He is omnipotent. An omnipotent God does not need millions of years to construct the world. He speaks and it is done. He is absolute and we owe Him absolute respect. With God we deal with absolutes.
Klotz continues with showing how much the New Testament accepts the Genesis account. In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus in speaking to the Pharisees about divorce accepts the account of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as literal and not allegorical; as historical and not mere myth or saga. Evolutionists say it is impossible for one male or one female to become "homo sapiens." Rather, they claim, a group of one hundred or five hundred came to this and that is what is meant by Adam and Eve. St. Paul accepts the historicity of the Adam and Eve account. Think of Romans chapter five where Paul compares one man, Adam, with one man, Christ. So in 1 Corinthians 15:22. In 1 Corinthians 11:8 Paul says man is not of woman, but woman of man. This is proof he accepted Genesis 2:21 as historical.
Then Klotz goes on to show how even the neo-Darwinism of today has a struggle for existence, survival of the fittest, nature red in teeth and claw when emphasizing race or population more than the individual. This is contrary to Christianity and this is the contrast between evolution and the Gospel.
DEAD SEA SCROLLS
The Annual's article on the Dead Sea Scrolls was written by R. Laird Harris, Ph.D., professor of Old Testament at Covenant Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.
Harris outlines the finding of the scrolls since 1947. Most of the Old Testament has been found in parts except the Book of Esther. The earliest copy seems to be of a section from II Samuel - 225 B.C. This was written by the Essenes who had headquarters in Qumran. Before this find, we had nothing in Hebrew much before 900 A.D. We did have the Latin Vulgate of 400 A.D., the Greek or Septuagint translation of about 200 B.C.
There are no significant changes in the text of the scrolls found. Harris says: "A comparison of the great Fifty-third chapter (Isaiah) might be of value. After we make appropriate allowances for these differences in spelling we find that the scroll adds two words to the present Hebrew text and uses more freely the single letter 'Waw' as a conjunction between clauses. The two added words are no improvement in our text but in any case do not change the sense. Actually we may fairly conclude that the new scrolls only confirm what we had. It is interesting to note that the Isaiah scroll, though valuable because of its early date, is clearly not as carefully written a copy nor as pure a text as our later manuscripts. Thus the scrolls confirm, but hardly improve upon our existing texts."
The higher critical views of the Old Testament are not supported by the scrolls. They date Job as late as 200 B.C. - we now have fragments of a copy of Job from 200 B.C. They place Ecclesiastes in the days of Herod the Great. We now have a copy from 150 B.C. Several Psalms were called Maccabean. That is now impossible. Daniel is still placed at 165 B.C. We have copies of about 110 B.C. The Pentateuch was not held to be sacred and conanical until 400 B.C., the Prophets not until 200 B.C., and the Writings not until 90 A.D. This is contradicted by the scrolls.
The scrolls do not use the three-fold division of books as the Talmud and medieval copies of the Hebrew Bible have it. Scrolls have only Law and Prophets as the New Testament has it.
Some have claimed the leader of the Essenes was their concept of Christ. Dr. G.H. Gaster, a Jewish scholar, rejects this in his book "The Dead Sea Scriptures" - Doubleday (1956). Harris says that the scrolls show that Gnosticism was late and was dependent on the New Testament, not that the New Testament being late was dependent on Gnosticism.
GENERATION OF LIFE
Dr. Paul Zimmerman (chemist and theologian), president of Concordia Junior College, Ann Arbor, Michigan supplied this article for the Annual. Writing in technical terms, he shows that, considered scientifically, there is no such thing as spontaneous generation of life.
In this article he shows how complex is the "simple" cell and how impossible in any way would be the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic matter. For life to come by itself from dead material, four things must happen, which Zimmerman takes from the following: Peter T. Mora, "Urge and Molecular Biology", Nature magazine, Volume 199, July 20, 1963, page 212.
1. A living organism must be autonomous, similar to others of its kind, but not an exact duplicate.Viruses, often regarded as a primordial type of life, do not meet the requirements of this definition. They are a shell of protein enclosing a core of nucleic acid. They multiply only by invading cells of another organism and using its chemistry to produce virus particles. They are parasites.
2. It must be self-maintaining, able to repair itself and duplicate itself.
3. It must be able to adjust to changing environmental conditions to survive.
4. It must have an urge or drive toward self-fulfillment.
Zimmerman states that scientists agree spontaneous generation is impossible today under existing conditions. They speculate conditions were different a long time ago. This is difficult to prove. This demands more faith than does creationism.
We quote Zimmerman "The difficulty of accounting for the evolution of life by spontaneous generation ... is of the highest order. It amounts to cloaking 'chance' with all the attributes of a deity. In this writer's opinion it requires a greater act of faith to embrace spontaneous generation than it does to believe in a divine creative act."
He further points out there must be design in the, way chemicals produce life. He says: "Only four organic bases occur in the nucleic acids. Yet these few components are linked and coded in such a marvelous way as to spell out the chemistry of life in all its glorious variety." Not only must we have the right molecules, they must be organized in the right systems. There they must be protected against degradation, so that they might multiply. Very few can survive above 60 degrees.
There must be the best of cooperation. When the DNA acids oxidize there must be the cooperation of no fewer than five complex co-factors, each of which is essential. This could not happen by chance.
What about the creation of life? Urey and Miller, using a mixture of methane, water, hydrogen and ammonia, subjected this mixture to high-voltage electricity. They produced amino acids, but not life, not even a virus. Heating mixtures of amino acids in molten glutamic acid produced something resembling proteins, but was not. For life, we need more than high energy tearing atoms apart. We need something that will organize or we have a host of useless compounds which destroy rather than build up. Mora says these attempts to produce life are only exercises in organic chemistry and no more. They do not resemble a self-perpetuating, coordinated process. They do not lead to the synthesis of a living unit with its characteristic urge. Zimmerman states:
"In effect it is as though a number of meaningful words have been produced by chance rolling of children's alphabet blocks. But what is required is that of the meaningful wisdom and complexity of the Encyclopedia Americana. What are the odds against this having been produced by the rolling of wooden alphabet blocks?"
To produce life, atmosphere would have to be free of oxygen, for oxygen would oxydize the cells. When by chance would oxygen come back to the atmosphere?
How do enzymes come by accident - which speed up life processes?
The cell is a chemical factory with
many different compartments. There is a three-dimensional network
of tubules and globles with a diameter of 100 - 150 millimicrons. We don't
even know many things about the cell.
The second law of thermodynamics, entropy, says disorder is nature's law. This disproves chance. Only in the living cell is the growth, and when it dies, there is decay again.
There is no selection among molecules. There is rather the indiscriminate mixing of chemicals with no order or sense until there is life.
To attribute everything to enough time is only wishful thinking.
All life seems to have a purpose. Chance does not fit in. Everything points to God.
This article was supplied by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Professor of Hydrology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va. He states that energy is basic to everything in the universe; that energy is never lost but always transformed. As it is transformed, it becomes less useful. This is called entropy.
Morris proves with quotations from such great physicists as P.W. Bridgman, Gerald Feinberg, Maurice Goldhaber, A.R. Ubbelohde, R.E. Peierls, Carnot, Clausius, and W.L. Everitt, past president of the American Society for Engineering Education, that these two laws of energy are definite and have withstood all attacks against them.
We consider power a time-derivative of energy; energy depends on light and the sun.
This adds importance to the creation of light and the creation of the sun as recorded in Genesis One. We quote Morris: "Whether or not the writer understood the significance of this assertion, the fact remains that the sun's 'light' or radiant energy, provides all of the earth's usable energy except that of its own rotation and the nuclear energy of its atomic structure. The sun's light maintains the physical and biologic life of the earth. It has been calculated that all of the stored-up energy sources of the earth - its coal, oil and gas reserves, its peat and timber, even its fissionable uranium, would only suffice to keep the earth going for about three days if the sun's energy were to be cut off."
The energy of light may be the most basic of all forms of energy. Energy of matter seems to be basically light energy. This puts a premium on creation of light.
Some feel these two laws of energy do not apply to sub-atomic field, but experiments show them to be present there too.
Energy is from God Himself. Hebrews 1:3 says everything is upheld by the Word of His power. Colossians 1:17 states all things are held together by Christ. II Peter 3:7 says the heavens and earth are kept in store by the same Word.
The law of disorder in Physics is found also elsewhere, so we speak of "morpholysis" or "loosing of structure". The whole world is running down and there must have been a creation at the beginning. The two laws of energy do not follow from each other. One was there first and disorder came later as the Bible indicates when it speaks of sin and the fall.
The greatest source of energy is in the Bible, in Christ. Matthew 28:18-20 says all power is given to Christ.
A PHILOSOPHY OF CREATIONISM
The author of this article in the Annual is a young and capable botanist, Dr. George Howe, professor at Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California.
According to Howe complex forms often appear in the fossil record before the simpler forms, showing no sign of evolutionary development.
One of the simplest organisms is the flagellate. Yet these are not found in what is supposed to be the earliest of rocks.
Evolution speaks of the "telome theory", according to which branches or "telomes" of leafless plants are supposed to have developed into plants with leaves. In the earliest fossil records plants have cells, stomata, spores, and leaves. Complicated plants with advanced spore bearing organs are found in the Lower Carboniferous strata, long before the simpler spore bearing types of plants.
In the fern field the more complex ferns are found in the older rock strata. According to evolutionists plants without seeds came first, then those with seeds. Plants with seeds are found in the supposedly oldest strata of rocks.
According to Howe when evolutionists are confronted with the problem of complex forms appearing before the simpler, they claim this happened once only and is not a general rule. He says: "It looks as if evolutionary theory is of very little predictive value, but is simply a rationalization or 'afterthought' of whatever paleobotanical data appear!"
Evolutionists claim there is a poly-phyletic ancestry because so many complex forms appear before the simple. Howe answers this is the same as creationism without using the word. Creationists believe in the beginning some complex and some simple plants were made.
Supposedly "advanced" and "primitive" characteristics are found in the same fossil bed. Modern forms are frequently the same as supposed ancient forms. This is true in algae, in mosses, in liverworts.
There are distinct gaps in the supposed development of all plants. We quote Howe: "The gaps which set apart certain fossil groups are so distinct that the groups cannot be easily classified in any of the known taxonomic categories ... The system of gaps and distinct groups evident argues for the non-evolutionary and miraculous creation of discreet functioning organisms."
Plants thought to be of only one particular group have characteristics found distributed in non-related groups. Some plants have seeds completely enclosed by a fruity structure. This has been found in supposedly non-allied lines. According to evolution the fruit-like structures would have to arise at least twice by chance in independent lines. It is easier to believe this occurred in creation.
The angiosperms have been claimed to be the ancestors of the magnolia flower. Recent discoveries have disproved this.
Heribert Nilsson, botanist, is quoted: "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than forty years, have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."
A claim is made that creationists worship a "God-of-gaps". Our God is much greater. We have a "God-of-groups" who created "after their kind". Fossil evidence supports miraculous creation of distinct types.
KINDS IN THE MODERN WORLD
Dr. Frank Lewis Marsh, biologist with the Geoscience Research Department of Andrews University at Barrien Springs, Michigan, has written a number of books for Creationism. He distinguishes between species and kind. This is a technical and exhaustive article on this subject.
Darwin was taught the Bible insists on the fixity of all species. In his five year circumnavigation of the globe he observed the many varieties through the world, and he concluded the Bible was wrong. He claimed there was not only variation within the kind but from kind to kind. The Bible does not teach fixity of the species. It does teach fixity of the kind, allowing variation within the kind, from species to species. Had Darwin known this, he might not have written his "Origin of the Species".
Marsh was challenged by evolutionists to describe the Biblical "kind". The classification scientists make today has little resemblance to the Biblical kind. Marsh even suggests a new word "baramin", taken from the Hebrew word "bara" meaning "to create something out of nothing" and "min" a Hebrew word meaning "kind". Finally, Marsh says, the best way to distinguish the Hebrew "kind" is to put those in separate kinds that will reproduce. If you can cross and they reproduce, they belong in the same kind.
A LIMITED ROLE
This is an article by Wm. J. Tinkle, Professor Genetics, Anderson College (retired), Eaton, Indiana. He makes the point that variations can be developed within the kind, but only up to a certain point.
He mentions sugar beets. Around
1800 experimentation increased sugar content in the beet from six to seventeen
percent through selection and cross-breeding. Since 1878, with all their
work, they have been able to do no more.
According to Tinkle it is as futile to expect a gene to develop a more advanced character as to expect a marble to grow bigger. There are mutations, but they are like cracked marbles. They are harmful rather than progressive.
There is a certain natural selection, eliminating the deformed and defective, but it does not produce something better. It does not start an advanced species or kind, it only maintains a lower limit.
Clifford Burdick (geologist) at Tucson, Arizona contributed this article to the Annual. He mentions the fact of suppos-edly older rocks being found above younger rock. Evolutionist geologists explain this by thrusts.
He contends there is a definite limit to the size and distance of thrusts. Shale is needed underneath in large quantities and much of the supposed thrust does not contain shale. An example of thrust is found in the Santa Rita Mountains in Arizona where there is a three-foot thick gouge layer of finely powdered rock. Supposed thrusts at Glacier National Park do not have this.
There are supposed great time lapses between older and younger rocks in the Grand Canyon - from thirty million to fifty million years, Burdick contends catastrophism is a better explanation for geology than is evolution.
SINCE 1859 WHICH
INVALIDATE THE EVOLUTION THEORY
This article is written by Dr. Walter E. Lammerts, editor of the Annual.
According to Lammerts the idea of
spontaneous generation was whittled away already years ago. Francisco Redi
showed that meat, if placed under a screen so flies could not lay eggs
on it, did not develop maggots. Lazzaro Spallanzani showed that a nutritive
broth sealed off from the air while boiling, never develops micro-organisms
and so never rots. Louis Pasteur in 1860 proved conclusively there is no
spontaneous generation of life.
Lammerts asks whether the Christian church should once again adopt a pagan philosophy of science and call it Christian. This is the mistake the church of the Middle Ages made in accepting the theories of Ptolemy. The Christian churches of today are doing the same thing when they try to conform Christianity with theories of evolution.
He continues with saying experiments on selection illustrate and prove the limitations of selection and disprove the natural selection theories of Darwin and Lamarck. Mutations are mistakes. Bacteria when exposed to a high level of penicillin die. Occasionally one lives and resistance to penicillin is increased. These resistant types are lower in metabolic ration and at a disadvantage in cultures free of antibiotics. They are not a superior product.
Perhaps God made changes in chromosome numbers after the Flood, using such mechanisms as translocation, inversion and duplication as a means to adapt species to the changed environment. (Like changing the language after the Tower of Babel).
Does the Red Shift really mean stars are speeding from each other or might this be a "tiring effect" resulting from light Photons traveling great distances? It might even be the effect of dust particles in space distorting quality of light observed. Disintegration of comets produce 14,300,000 tons of meteoritic dust each year. In five billion years a layer fifty-four feet thick should have accumulated over the earth. No such layer is found on the ocean floor. Were the world one billion years old, we should expect 18,480 feet of erosion on the ocean bottom. There is hardly 1,800 feet of it. Sulphates are being carried into the ocean at more than twice the rate of sodium and chlorine, yet there is more than seven times as much chlorine in the ocean as sulphate and four times as much as sodium. Evidently both sodium and chlorine were abundant at time zero.
Lammert says: "Only by tying the Biblical concept of an original creation with the various curses resulting in the transformation of many life forms, and ending in the final catastrophe of a world-wide Flood can we build an adequate explanation of the world we see around us."
OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
THAT ACCEPTS ITS LIMITATIONS AND
MAKES USE OF THE SCRIPTURES
This short article at the end of the Annual is written by Thomas G. Barnes, Director of the Schellenger Research Laboratory, Texas Western College. No evolutionist can determine how things began. The law of indeterminacy applies also here. If the two laws of thermodynamics are true, (conservation of energy and entropy) the world is running down. Then it must have been conceived full-blown. He states the theories of Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in their book "The Genesis Flood" are much better than the evolutionary theory. The scientist who accepts the Bible is the better scientist.