November 1964

VOL. II;  No. 8;  November 1964

Dedicated to:
Special Creation
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

    Texans Protest Biology Texts
    Corpus Christi Group Active in this Protest
One of the more recent battles against evolutionary indoctrination in our public schools took place in Austin, Texas, when a group of pastors and lay people protested the adoption of the new biology texts, called the BS CS series (Biology Science Curriculm Studies). These were developed with the aid of a five million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation with the greater share of the funds coming from the Federal Government. The attack was made because it was claimed the books presented evolution as fact, indoctrinating evolution.

The October 1964 issue of the Bible-Science Newsletter pointed to the ruling of the California Board of Education that it is as illegal to teach evolution as fact and indoctrinate it, as to conduct worship with the Bible in public schools.

Some newspaper items as well as radio and television releases attempted to indicate that most of the protest was coming from the Church of Christ, including Mr. Hulen L. Jackson of Dallas, Texas. Other denominations were also represented, for instance, Mr. Reuel Lemmons of Austin, a Baptist, and a group of Lutherans, mainly from Corpus Christi, Texas. Leader of this delegation was The Reverend Vernon Harley, pastor of the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church of Corpus Christi. The Reverend Schroeder of Corpus Christi was present also. Other protesters included Mr. Vernon L. Decker of El Paso; Mr. Bob Laing of Houston; Mr. Joe Guthrie of Houston; Mr. Fred C. Melton of Houston; Mrs. Joan Slay of Fort Worth, representing a parents' committee; and Mr. and Mrs. M.F. Gabler of Hawking, Texas. Scientists testifying against indoctrinating the theory of evolution were Dr. Sears of Searcy, Arkansas and Dr. Dean of Pepperdine College in California.

    Protest Directed Against New Blue, Green, and Yellow Versions
An estimated 200 persons turned out for the textbook hearing, overflowing into corridors outside the Agency's conference rooms in Austin. Under protest were such books as, "Biological Science: Molecules to Man" (Blue Version) by Houghton Mif-flin Co., "High School Biology" by Rand McNally Co. (Green Version), and "Biological Science: An Inquiry into Life" (Yellow Version) by Harcourt Brace and World. A total of eight biology books were up for adoption with most of the protests directed against the above-mentioned three. Of the eight, all were finally adopted by the Commission except "Elements of Biology" by Allyn Bacon and Company. Protestors felt the worst of the lot was Blue Version, "Biological Science: Molecules to Man," which they claim is straight evolutionary indoctrination. Actually 226 books were up for adoption at this time and protests were made against ten other eighth grade and four high school civic books, and one eighth grade reader.

In July, letters and petitions began coming in to the Education Agency and to Governor John Connally's office, alleging that instruction in the theory of evolution undermines religious faith. The Reverend George Golden, pastor of Bethel Baptist Church of Arlington stated, "These three books (the Blue, Green and Yellow versions ) present it (evolution), and present it as a fact rather than as a theory."

Science editor of Rand McNally Co., publisher of one of the books, disputed Golden, quoting a passage from "High School Biology" which says: "A theory is never proved once and for all .... proof means a theory continues to account for new evidence as it arises." William Miller, the editor, says the book really presents evolution as theory and does not attempt to indoctrinate.

    Corpus Christi Protest
Members of the Corpus Christi group (The Reverend Vernon Harley, Mrs. William Rascoe, Mrs. N.D. Huie Jr., James G. Smith, Allan E. Wood, Mrs. J.T. Persons, Travis R. Parker, Leroy E. Kissinger, Mrs. Verna Burke, and John Toepfer of Portland, Texas) had carefully studied the books and had elaborate documentation of their evolutionary content. Of the Blue Version they had this to say: "This book, while purporting to be a textbook on the science of biology, is in reality a textbook on Darwinian evolution. Instead of limiting itself to a truly scientific presentation of actual observation and experimentation, it approaches the study of biology from the unproved assumption that evolution is the manner in which life originated and continues to develop." They complained that it entirely ignored the Biblical and Creationist position.

They also complained that the book confuses fact with theory and speculation. This is what they had to say: "In this way it constructs a system which is falsely labeled 'science' and with it religious beliefs . . . are made to appear impossible and unscientific." They claim the book does not point out that many scientists do not accept evolution. Their final point was: "The authors of this book apparently assume the right to teach atheistic evolution under a mask of science and thus to undermine basic Christian beliefs. Whereas the principle of not using public schools for the teaching of religion may be a valid one, especially when this is done contrary to the wishes of those involved, we do not believe this principle allows for the teaching of evolutionistic and atheistic speculation which would undermine the students' Christian beliefs."

They listed four pages of quotations from the book to prove their point. This was also done with the other two books and they made a reply to the defense of one of the books, "Biological Science: An Inquiry into Life," by the publishers, (Yellow Version).

In their reply to the defense they insisted that evolution in these texts becomes a substitute religion, which makes God unnecessary. They could not agree that biological investigation has nothing to do with the idea of Biblical teaching of Creation. They said: "There are at least as many rational reasons for interpreting biological observations in terms of Creation as in terms of evolution." They complained: "Evolution is credited for advancement and scientific progress, whereas most of this is to be accredited to the thousands of scientists who had no particular interest in evolution or in proving its claims." They also said: "We believe the publisher overstates his case by referring to more than 'one hundred thousand living biologists' who are its expert witnesses to a 'satisfactorily established theory. Were all of these biologists polled to determine their conclusions? Or does a relatively small group of writers attempt to speak for the hundreds of thousands who are possibly of varying opinion?

In a similar manner they replied to the defense of the Blue Book and of the Green Book. In their reply to the defense by the publishers of the Blue Book, they stated: "On page 7 the publisher ascribes the great advance of American culture to the freedom to investigate under the American tradition of separation of church and state. This is an implication that those who oppose evolution as a scientific answer of life are threatening to hamper the freedom of scientific investigation. There is no attempt on our part to do this because we believe proper investigation will only further show the glory of the handiwork of the Creator. But we are sincerely alarmed by the fact that many evolutionists, using the claim of science for what is arbitrary classification and interpretation, are attempting to foist their beliefs upon an unsuspecting public and even upon fellow scientists in such a fashion that it virtually becomes scientific suicide to disagree with their position. We deplore this tendency toward intolerance Whether in the religious or scientific field." In conclusion to this reply they quoted Dr. W.R. Thompson, Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control who said, "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial." (In "Charles Darwin, Origin of Species," Everyman's Library ed. N.Y.E.P. Dutton, 1956.)

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, being constructed at Palo Alto, California has made Bible-Science news. A two-mile long building is being erected. Electrons will be accelerated in a 10,000-foot evacuated tube to the energy of 20 Gev. (109 electron volts) and they will reach 99.99999999% of the velocity of light. Miss Alice Meunist, work-Ing at the accelerator, wrote about a supposed fossil find uncovered while digging the foundations of this accelerator. She enclosed several clippings. The claim is made that a cluster of bones uncovered by a bulldozer working at one end of the two-mile-long atom smasher may be those of a whale or sea cow from the Miocene Age, supposedly ten million years old.

The clipping states that tentative identification of the bones has been made by Dr. Earl Packard, former paleontologist at the University of Oregon, now Research Associate in Geology at Stanford, also doing research at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park. He theorized the marine animal was trapped in the mud millions of years ago when the entire area from Los Trancos Woods to Searsville Lake was largely under water.

The Stanford Daily sent by Miss Meuniet, dated October 26, 1964, states the scientists are calling the animal a Paleoparadoxia, which is a scientific joke-name for an animal nearly-defying classification. It is claimed to be about the size and shape of a hippopotamus, to which it may be dimly related. It had short tusks for rooting in soft marshy ground and shoreline areas, a head resembling a tapir's, heavily muscled hind legs like those of a frog and short front legs with relatively long, finger-like claws. What and how old this animal is remains a question. Why should it not fit in with Biblical time values and geology?

What shall we do now that the election has gone as it has? This is a question we hear frequently these days from conservatives, who feel the country is doomed to complete degeneration.

The Bible-Science Newsletter does not believe that politics is in its realm. It believes much good can be done for a healthier political atmosphere as the philosophies that motivate cur churches and our schools are purified. It is evident the Bible-Science Newsletter does not take an anti-science attitude in any way. To the contrary, its purpose is to encourage better science. But when science or human reason is put over the revelation God has given us in the Bible, an unhealthy attitude and atmosphere develop. It appears to the Newsletter that this is evident in many areas today. If science learns to put the revelation of God in the Bible first, and work from that point out, science itself accomplishes more, and there is also a much better moral attitude.

With all the discoveries of science the big question now is to use the great discoveries for the good of mankind rather than to destroy mankind. And this depends on whether we feel the discoveries in natural science give us all the answers, or whether we find the greater answers in the Bible, in Christ, and in the love of God who sent Christ. This Newsletter firmly believes we have better politics, better science and better theology when we learn to give precedence to the revelation of God in the Bible, in Christ, and in Christ's salvation.

    Bible-Science Institutes
Group of students [pictured] at Bible-Science Institute in Caldwell, January 1, 1964.

By the time this Newsletter reaches the readers, the Institute in Los Angeles will be history. We plan to have a comprehensive report on it in the next issue. In the meantime, there have been inquiries about similar Institutes over the country. The Reverend Wm. Kennell of Montgomery, Alabama, wishes that such an Institute could be developed in that area.

There has been concern to have some sort of a Bible-Science Institute in the Austin, Texas area. A medical doctor, Dr. James Lassiter, is particularly interested and has shown great interest in the writings of Henry Morris. The editor of this Newsletter will speak at a Lutheran Laymen's League Rally at Federal Way, near Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, on Bible and Science relationships on March 14, 1965. The Reverend Wm. McMurdie of Tacoma, Washington, is interested in an Institute there. The Sunday School Association of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in the Seattle area wants to review Dr. Zimmerman's essay. Dr. Pearson P. Phillips of New Castle, Delaware, would like an Institute in his area. We of the Bible-Science Association desire to be helpful in the establishing and development of these Institutes. This editor is serving a congregation and cannot himself serve at these Institutes too often. But there are fine lecturers all over the country and the Newsletter will be glad to be of help toward developing Institutes and arranging speakers and lecturers.

In replying to the defense of the book "Elements of Biology," by Allyn and Bacon, which finally was not adopted by the Texas Commission, the group from Corpus Christi quoted from Dr. John Klotz of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, regarding the purpose of gill slits in the human embryo as stated in his book "Genes, Genesis, and Evolution," which was reviewed extensively in a previous issue of the Bible-Science Newsletter, and is offered for sale through the Newsletter. Dr. Klotz "points out that it is but natural in a being developing from a single fertilized cell to a complex being such as a man, for the heart, too, to begin in a simple form and develop to meet the needs of the developing organism. This it does, not because the human was once a protozoan, but because the most natural manner of development is this way. The gill slits in the fish serve as respiratory organs. If they are to recapitulate the fish stage, they should be functional in respiration, but they are not." They quote Dr. Klotz to show that gill slits develop as an inpocketing from the neck and an outpocketing from the pharynx. In later embryonic life they are corporated into various other organs. The first becomes the Eustachian tube ... the second is incorporated into the palatine tonsils. The third, fourth and fifth become incorporated into the thymus, parathyroids, and postbranchial bodies.

(This is part of an essay prepared by Clifford Burdick, Tucson, Arizona)

    Life On Other Planets
At a recent convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Chicago, Dr. Herman J. Miller, speaking on the possibility of life on other planets, said that it was probable that at least 105 of the stars have families of planets. If so, he proposed that organic compounds would be produced in the atmosphere and seas by the action of ultra-violet light, cosmic rays and electrical discharge. These compounds would interact to produce more complex compounds, amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, and presto! you have spontaneous generation through photo-synthesis. Automatic self-creation, Twentieth Century style, no outside interference necessary. Dr. Muller thought it absurd to "imagine a world with organism, clarifible as grasses, fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. To suppose that human beings evolved there is about as ridiculous as to imagine that they speak English ....

Perhaps you have may have missed George Gaylord Simpson's paper "The Non-Prevalence of Humanoids," in the Feb. 21st issue of "Science", 1964. Here we see pictured the bankruptcy of evolution, clearly outlined . . . Simpson alludes to the assumption made by many astronomers, physicists, and bio-chemists that once life gets started anywhere, humanoids will eventually and inevitably appear. This assumption Simpson call plainly false because conditions of life and environments would be different. Thus here he rules out any approach to Homo sapiens anywhere in the universe.

If the Creator then has to depend upon the slow process of evolution to produce intelligent beings made in His own image, then His hands are tied, if He wants to produce this type of being in other worlds. Simpson and Muller admit the impossibility as far as evolution is concerned. Of course we have no scientific evidence that there are other planets inhabited by intelligent creatures like man, with one exception. There have been many reliable observers who have testified to the fact that intelligent beings, similar to man, have come from Heaven to talk With and deal with man on earth.

According to evolutionary dogma this would be impossible. The other alternative would be that God created them. Thus leading evolutionary scientists have admitted that their science has failed to explain observe facts. It is bankrupt ....

When the present writer first studied geology, Big Bang and Gravitational Collapse theories about 100,000,000 years was considered to be the age of the earth. The evolution of man from Cambrian simple life would have needed that much time at least. But with the development of the new radioactive chronometer the assumed age of the earth has been multiplied fifty-fold. All age-dating of course is based upon the assumption of uniformity.
Measurements of sediments on the ocean bottoms reveal about 1,500 feet in the Atlantic and 1,000 feet in the Pacific. The present rate of sedimentation is thought to be about one-half inch in 1,000 years. Thus the Pacific Ocean would be more or less about 100,000, 000 years old. That is not allowing for any catastrophic activity such as the Flood of Noah, which could reduce time measurements tremendously.

Rogers and Dunbar, in their new text on stratiography admit that the principle of uniformity cannot be applied as severely as Lyell would have applied it. For instance they mention petrified trees still standing upright in clay beds of the coal measures. At slow, uniform rates of sedimentation, the trees would have rotted and dropped long before they were covered, but they were covered so swiftly that they showed no decay. They are frank enough to say that this interrupts the uniformitarian picture.

Schuchert, the Yale Stratigrapher, was equally honest when he pointed out that the very fact that fossils are preserved so perfectly indicates that they were buried before predators had time to consume them or otherwise be destroyed by bacteria.

Hugh Miller described some fossil fishes which were buried with gills and fins extended as if in great fright at some overwhelming catastrophe. ("Testimony of Rocks.")

More recently the "Big Bang" hypothesis of the creation of all matter, atoms in the universe in one giant explosion, has received much emphasis of late. This would be far more catastrophic than the Flood of Noah.

This hypothesis is based in part on the Doppler effect, in the spectograph, a movement toward the red end of the spectrum which astronomers interpret as the farther away stars moving away from us at greater speeds. The "Big Bang" hypothesis does not fit very well into the uniformitarian picture ....

    Theory of Gravitational Collapse of Stars
Recently, at a meeting of many of the world's top scientists at Dallas, Texas, the new Gravitational Collapse theory was propounded by Robert Oppenheimer, Fred Hoyle, Matthews, Greenstein Fowler at Dallas, Texas.
A giant star more than 112 billion miles in diameter was believed to have collapsed by the force of its own gravity, a force that under certain conditions could exert a force many times more powerful than a nuclear reaction. Instead of the explosion of the Big Bang hypothesis this gravitational collapse is called an implosion, and would be a source of tremendous amounts of radio energy. Such name scientists as listed above met to discuss this and other problems in astronomy.

(Continued in Next Issue)

    The Peking Man
We are looking for copies of a periodical put out by Dr. Oldham from Canton, China, in 1927-1932 or so. We met Dr. Oldham at Albion College, near Burley, Idaho, through the good graces of The Reverend Koch of Burley. Dr. Oldman is now aged and is teaching at this college. He remembers that a Chinese scientist sent him much information for the paper which he edited, indicating that the Peking Man was not older than about three or four hundred years, and was the same as an average Chinese man. But Dr. Oldham lost all his documentation when he had to leave China. He says copies of this paper were mailed all over China and to sources in this country. He believes that copies could be found somewhere in the country. If they can be found, he will be happy to translate them so that we could obtain the documentation from this Chinese scientist. Can anyone help us find copies of this paper? We can't supply any more information than this.

(The on-line presentation of this issue (starting with Vol. II, No. 4;
and those following contain only excerpted sections and contents.)