December 1964

VOL. II;  No. 9;  December 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

During this Christmas Season we ask the question again about Virgin Birth, which is so essential to the power of the Christmas story. Does science have anything like that ? We recognize that the virgin birth is a miracle, that cannot be duplicated. Still we do find something like virgin birth going on. In turkeys especially they often produce new birds without fertilization of the egg by the male sperm. They usually use radiation to accomplish this. They imagine that there is a reservoir of fertilization in the egg that can be induced without the male sperm. This is not the virgin birth of the Savior. But the same God, who can allow this in nature, certainly also could bring Christ into the world without the benefit of the male sperm, if He so desires.

Our faith does not rest on how to explain the virgin birth. What our faith at Christmas time rests on is that God became man, and chose this way. God became man because this was the only way that our sins could be taken away, creationism and the Christian approach is that God created the world perfect, man fell into sin, man and all of nature now do not improve but degenerate by themselves. Only when God sends His Son into the world to be perfect for us, to take away our sins, is there real improvement in this sin-cursed world. May then the great redemption of the Christ child, born of a virgin, be the joy of your Christmas celebration and this is our Christmas greeting to you.

We must apologize to the many correspondents and to those who have sent us excellent articles for the Newsletter for this issue. We have to keep everything else to a minimum to include the essays from the Los Angeles Institute, and we plan to have our regular features again in the January issue. We wish to thank the many people who have written, and those who have sent in sizeable orders and sizeable donations. It takes a great deal to publish this Newsletter and to help keep Creationism before the people in the religious and educational world. The more support we receive, the more we can reach out with the creation facts.

Since the present issue of the Bible-Science Newsletter is four times the size and expense of others, and since it will be sometime before we realize income from the sale of these essays in book form, any special support given to the Newsletter at this time will be doubly welcome.

About 7,000 people heard the six lecturers speaking on relations between Bible and Science, at the Bible-Science Institute in the Los Angeles area, Nov. 9-12, 1964. Lectures were held in five Lutheran Churches or parish halls. Lecturers addressed elementary school children in large numbers. They spoke to high school students and college students during the day, as well as to groups in the evenings.

As indicated in previous Bible-Science Newsletters, these lectures were held at 1st Lutheran Church in San Fernando; Em-maus First Lutheran Parish Hall in Alhamba; Zion Lutheran Parish Hall in Anaheim; Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Ingle-wood; Trinity Lutheran Church in San Diego. School children of the Christian Day Schools were reached at Alhambra, Inglewood, San Fernando, Anaheim, San Diego, and St. Paul's in Orange. The Lutheran High School in Los Angeles was served throughout the day Tuesday. Biola Institute in La Mirada was reached.

Dr. Walter E. Lammerts, geneticist, of Berkeley, Calif., spoke on mutations. Dr. Geo. Howe, biologist, of Westmont College, Santa Barbara, talked on how God created plants. Dr. Bolton Davidheiser. biologist at Biola Institute in Los Angeles, spoke on God and Biology. Wilbert Rusch, M. S., biologist at Concordia Junior College, Ann Arbor, Michigan, talked on the Christian and Science. Clifford Burdick, M.S., consulting geologist at Tuscon, Arizona, discussed Geology and the Bible. The Rev. Walter Lang of Caldwell, Idaho, editor of the Bible-Science Newsletter, explained Genesis One and Two.

    Essays in this issue
By special arrangement with the printer, this issue of the Newsletter is being enlarged so that 2% essays can be included complete. All the essays will be put into book form which will be available at a cost of $1.50 (paper bound). The probable title of the book will be "The Challenge of Creation." The other essays will be printed next month before the book is printed. Usual material in this Newsletter is being held to an absolute minimum to make it possible to include these essays.

    Press Conference
An elaborate press conference was held Nov. 12 at Zion Lutheran Parish Hall in Anaheim, with representatives of the large Dailies in the Los Angeles area asking questions regarding creationism and evolutionism for a period of nearly two hours. Milt Brouhard of the Los Angeles Times characterized the Institute as an effort to attack the theory of evolution. Several of the women active in sponsoring the Institute mentioned above, wrote scientific articles every week for the science page of the Santa Ana Register for eight weeks. This was done to demonstrate that the creation approach is best both for Christianity and science. We intend to review these articles in a future issue of the Newsletter.

Since this Institute has been held and such a tremendous interest was in evidence, there have been inquiries as to how similar Institutes can be held in other parts of the country. Dr. G. Archer Weniger of San Francisco asked in his "Blu-Print" why such an Institute could not be held in the San Francisco area. The Newsletter is ready to serve in developing similar Institutes in other parts of the country.

(Continued from November Issue)

At a recent meeting in December, 1963, of the American Geological Society, Norman Newell, paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York, had this to say:

"Geology suffers from a great lack of data, and in such a situation any attractive theory that conies along is taken as gospel. That is the case with uniformitarianism. Geology students are taught that 'the present is the key to the past,' and too often they take it to mean nothing ever happened that is not happening now. But since the end of World War II, when a new generation moved in, we have gathered more data and we have begun to realize that there were many catastrophic events in the past, some of which happened just once." (Norman Newell Lecture delivered at The American Geological Society, New York City, December, 1963.)

The science writer who wrote up the meeting for Newsweek, December 23, 1963, had this observation to make, "Catastrophism is a fighting word among geologists. It is theory based on divine intervention, and its adherent hold that the history of the earth and the life on it were moved by a series of disasters inspired by God, the last one being Noah's Flood. It was the major line of thought for a few decades in the last century, but a vigorous counter attack by the naturalists against the supernaturalists eventually pushed it aside. But now many geologists believe the counterattack may have been all too vigorous. In their haste to reject the hand of God, they have passed over some solid evidence that could help improve their understanding of both geology and evolution. As a result, many were advising the rehabilitation of catastrophism, without recourse to a supernatural agent."

Here the editor calls a spade a spade, Young men, training in geology, have been led to believe that uniformitarianism, which is basic to geology, has been so well proved that it is merely axiomatic. It was well over a hundred years ago that Lyell sold the scientific world on uniformity, supposedly as demonstrated science, but now after the accumulation of scientific knowledge for a century, Newell and others admit that proof is lacking to make uniformity a universal law. How about the evidence in Lyell's time? It is now clear that the theory was proposed on philosophical grounds, as an antidote for Christianity and the Christian's Bible, and has little to substantiate it. Of course, many of the geological processes have taken place at a rate comparable to the present, but scientific data now concludes that most of the noteworthy activity took place in short periods of cataclysm. If so, geologic time must be greatly shortened.

Even a foremost nuclear geologist, a leader in the Scientific Affiliate, a Theistic scientific society, in arguing against the universal flood, said that he doubted that the Creator would interfere very much or very often in this world; that He would rather let things take their natural course according to fixed laws.

This well-known geologist and nuclear physicist may be tops in his profession, but in my humble opinion he has far to go to be tops in a knowledge of the Word of God. Why should men assign to the Almighty motives less worthy than they would assign to men? Would General Motors or Westinghouse build expensive laboratories and then go to Europe and let the laboratories run themselves? After the Lord created this world, which He says He created to be inhabited, would He not be interested in what He had made? Daniel told the Babylonian king that the Almighty rules in the affairs of men. He sets up kings and He removes them. The letter to the Colossians says that in Christ all things hold together. What else, I would like to know, keeps this world from blowing up in a giant nuclear holocaust? A vital part of faith is that Christ lives in His people and answers their prayers. ...

Christianity is the religion with an immanent God; it is the heathen religions which keep their gods out of reach. If for no other reason, this should make evolutionary science and uniformitarian geology suspect.

    Radioactive  Dating
One of the liveliest propositions in geology today is, how old is the earth? When I first studied geology the earth was supposed to be about 100,000,000 years, according to the supposed rate of sedimentation, until Twenhofel proved there was no set rate of sedimentation. Then, along came the nuclear physicists who told us that the earth was actually at least 1.6 billion years old, sixteen times its former assumed age, and now it has been stretched out to about five billion years, ample time to evolve almost anything. The Creationists have been caught off balance once more; so few have been equipped to argue With the physicists and mathematicians that the tendency has been to either accept the verdict of this new geochronometer or at least try to compromise the Bible with radioactive datings, much as the churchmen did a generation ago, when Darwin jolted the scientific and religious world with his "Origin of Species."

The technique of radioactive age dating is accurate enough in theory, but there is just one catch. It too is based upon the assumption of the constancy in the past of the half-lives of the radioactive elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium, rubidium, Carbon-14, etc. In other words, we start out by assuming that for the past five billion years or so uranium has been decaying at the same rate as at present; a reasonable assumption the nuclear physicists tell us, but still an assumption. Arthur Holmes, the English geologist once told us, when you have to insert an assumption as one factor in an equation, you may as well guess at the end result in the first place. Such an equation just does not add up to good science.

But what evidence, if any, we are asked, do we have of the possible variability of nuclear disintegration? In the June 19. 1964 issue of Time magazine, in the science section appeared an article headed, "In a restless Universe, constants can vary." Then it described some discoveries by physicists at the Westinghouse Research laboratory in Pittsburgh. Heretofore, radioactive disintegration rates could not be changed by subjecting them to variations of heat, cold, pressure magnetism, etc. Therefore, it was assumed that the rate in nature has always been constant.

But recently the Westinghouse engineers have staged a breakthrough and found at least one way to alter the decay rate. Although the variation was only about 3%, it is not the amount that's significant, but the fact. More ways of altering the decay rates may be found, and in larger percentages.

Iron (Fe) 57 exists in both excited and unexcited states. In the excited state, radiation occurs and the atom decays to the unexcited state with the emission of gamma rays. When Fe-57 in the unexcited state absorbs the gamma rays, it too becomes excited, then proceeds to the unexcited state an instant later.

Westinghouse physicists then surrounded Fe-57 atoms with a blanket of iron atoms in the unexcited state. The excited atoms decayed at the normal rate, emitting gamma rays that were absorbed by the unexcited atoms, which became excited and as they in turn disintegrated, their gamma rays reexcited the other atoms, thus lengthening the average radioactve life of the original group by about 3% according to the report of Dr. Lawrence M. Epstein.
The moral in this I think is that it might be wise to delay giving up just yet in our confidence in the "sure word of prophecy" to embrace some current popular theory that some scientists proposes. Tomorrow it may be out of date.

Carbon-14 dating is based upon the theory of the constancy of production of Carbon-14 from nitrogen by means of cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere . The strength of cosmic radiation varies inversely as the strength of the magnetic field. The National Geographic Society says that analysis of iron in ancient bricks indicates that magnetism may have declined by about two-thirds over the past 2,000 years. The earth's magnetic field shields it from cosmic rays, the atomic nuclei that constantly flow in from outer space, and as magnetism declines in strength more rays will hit the earth. Carbon-14 results from the collision of cosmic rays with nitrogen atoms in the air. If the amount of Carbon-14 has varied due to changes in the magnetic field, and has not remained a reliable constant for measuring age, many estimates may be in error.

Here we see that the assumption of uniformity was a mistake and the same goes for other radioactive computations. For instance, it has been found that cosmic radiation also may cause variations in the decay rate of radioactive metals, thus upsetting the age calculations. This discrepancy was highlighted from age measurements of meteorites. From this analysis iron meteorites appear to be hundreds of millions of years old, while the stony meteorites by the same token, seem to be only tens of millions of years old. Here is a mystery. Why should these objects which fall out of the sky possess such widely divergent ages? Dr. Urey has offered the explanation that the iron portion of the meteorites had been subjected to more cosmic ray radiation than the stony parts, and thus had "aged" faster. Sounds like a brewery or a winery. But I hope we don't miss the tremendous implication of this theory. These high-energy cosmic rays are powered by billions of electron volts and can penetrate 1,400 meters of earth. If, for instance, at the time of the Flood or other period of cataclysm, cosmic radiation was more intense, the radioactivity decays would have been speeded up, thus giving an exaggerated appearance of age. Variation in magnetic field could well explain variation in decay rates.

    Sudden Birth of an Immense Star
In June of this year the birth of an immense star was described by Dr. George Herbig of Lick observatory to a group of astronomers gathered at a convention at Flagstaff, Arizona. This bright star FU Orionis was first catalogued in 1898, but within 120 days increased in brilliance many times greater than the sun. Uni-formitaranism has become a joke among astronomers. But the remarkable part of the discovery was not the sudden birth of a ninth-magnitude star, but was the sudden appearance of a lithium line in the spectrum. Normally, Herbig said, it would take 10 million years for a celestial body to synthesize lithium as a byproduct of atomic fusion processes.

The outcome of this little skirmish between uniformity and cataclysm is worthy of close attention. If some nuclear physicist were to suddenly discover the lithium line without knowing the past history of the star, he would conclude that the star or the lithium in the sun was at least ten million years old, on the uniformitarian basis of atomic fusion; but the actual observations show that the lithium was formed in a matter of four months. With this we rest our case in favor of Catastrophism.

Robert Sterling Yard once declared, "The Grand Canyon is the colossus of canyons, by far the largest example of stream erosion in the world, and according to Charles Dudley Warner, "It is by common consent the most stupendous spectacle in the world." To a geologist the Grand Canyon is even more meaningful, as Charles of Yale remarked, "For eight days the writer had the greatest scientific pleasure of his life in the geological wonderland, the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in Arizona. Truly such a geological insight into the structure of the earth's outer shell is nowhere else to be had. It is a paradise for the stratigrapher."

It may be well to point out that during the almost 5,000 feet descent from the rim at 7,000 feet elevation, one may observe most of the Paleozoic era usually estimated at nearly 400,000,000 years; the Proterozoic era, of almost equal time, and part of the Archeozoic of nearly the same length of time. The Mesozoic and Cenozoic Era are both missing at the Grand Canyon. As one listens to the story of the canyon as related by the Park naturalists, the feature most stressed seems to be the billion odd years of time exposed in the Grand Canyon, rather than the natural beauty.

The cliff-forming capping layer is the almost white Kaibab limestone member of the Permian formation, a marine rock containing many sea shells. The next Permian member is the Toroweap, little more than a talus slope. Next below the Toroweap comes the coconino sandstone member, about 300 feet thick, noted for its cross-bedding probably due to the wind-blown sand of dune origin. The keen observer will note that given horizons on the west side of the Bright Angel trail appear about 186 feet higher than on the east. The geologist will explain this discrepancy as due to a north and south fault line which forms the basis of Bright Angel Canyon Charles Schuchert collected and described animal tracks found in this formation and placed them in Peabody Museum at Yale University, among them an amphibian of the group Protopeda.

Next below the Coconino comes the reddish colored Hermit shale, forming another talus slope. The Hermit shale is underlain conformably by the thick Supai red lower member of the Permian formation, at this point some 850 feet in thickness. In a first glance at the canyon one is impressed with its gorgeous red color.

The supai is notable for cyclic sedimentation; that is, alternating strata of sandstone and shale, assumed to have been deposited in river flood plains. The fossils are of continental nature, but this cyclic sedimentation has always been somewhat of a puzzler for orthodox geology to explain - why a river at one time could deposit one type of sediment lithologically speaking, and at another time another type. A river can scarcely swing back and forth from one source area to another, with such clock-like regularity.

    Evidence of the Flood
Very recently I heard the oft-repeated cliche for a university geologist, that the Bible is not a book of science, and yet Genesis 8:1-3 perhaps gives a better explanation of cyclic sedimentation than any of the university texts. The above scripture tells us how God dried up the waters of the Flood by causing a strong wind to blow, which caused the waters to dry up by "going and returning," as the margin explains. The flood waters, far more expansive than any river, carried sediments from one direction, from sources of supply of a certain type of rock, and deposited it over big areas, as we see today in the vast Colorado plateau, especially the Grand Canyon region. Then the wind of hurricane velocity changed direction, and brought another type of sediment from some other source area, where a different rock type lithologically existed. This type of interbedding is very common all over the world; and here again Flood geology has a distinct contribution to make.

    The Missing Formations
The Supai formation apparently lies comfortably upon the Redwall, 550 feet of Mississippian limestone. By conformably I mean that no apparent angular discordance exists between the two formations that might suggest a time interval between the periods of deposition. However, we are told that such a gap exists, a gap of perhaps some 20,000,000 years of Pennsylvanian time, so deducted because of the lack or non-existence of Pennsylvanian fossils.

As one descends deeper into the gash in the earth, he passes 550 feet of Redwall Mississippian limestone, dyed red by the verly-ing red Supai formation. This formation lies apparently conformably upon the Cambrian Mauv limestone. By conformably we mean that the two formations lie one upon the other like the leaves in a book, with no apparent angular discordance due to tilting of the strata and subsequent erosion, which one would expect if a time gap between episodes of erosion had taken place.

The Ordivican, Silurian, and Lower Devonian are missing at this place in the Canyon, in fact the first two are missing over most of Arizona. Let us contemplate the significance of such an awesome hiatus, of some 100,000,000 years. In our own lifetime we can measure the rise of certain lines and the sinking of others. Twenhofel remarked that there is hardly a place on earth that is really stable.

    Instability of Earth
The writer was recently invited to visit a seismograph station. He had been watching the instrument scarcely fifteen minutes before the instrument began to dance, as it recorded an earth tremor. They stated that about a million intensities are recorded every year. What are the chances therefore of the Colorado Plateau remaining so motionless for 100,000,000 years that neither erosion nor deposition took place? Is this logical geology?

But why, one asks, is such a long hiatus called for when there is little or no physical evidence to account for it? It is that a certain type of fossils are found in the Redwall stamping it as Mississippian, whereas the Cambrian Muav and Tapeats sandstone have Cambrian index fossils. But, if we have to depend on fossil evidence alone, we are sticking our necks out pretty far, for as we descended deeper into the canyon we reach the precambrian formations, where no fossils were supposed to have been found except algae. The writer however has been doing a research pro-blem at the geochronology laboratories at the University of Arizona concerning the recovery of fossil spores from the Petrified Forest and the Grand Canyon, and is the first to have recovered spores from the Canyon. One of the Precambrian formations in the canyon is the Hakati shale, a red rock. The first spore to come from the Hakati shale, and to the consternation of the department the first spore on pollen to come forth was one from the order of the pines. Pines in Precambrian time? Why not? Such a find should not be embarrassing to Creationists? The sedimentary series belong to the later Precambrian, but below them lies un-conformably the metamorphosed, contorted Vishnu Schist, of early Precambrian age. This may represent the destroyed and metamorphosed antediluvian mountains dating back to the time of Creation.

    Footprints On The Sands of Time
In spite of the numerous fossil forms far larger than their living counterparts, reptiles to name just one, it has been the standard museum practice to exhibit the evolutionary line of horses from the tiny Eohippus to the modern horse, While they say nothing concerning another fossil Perrissodactyl, the giant Oligocene Erontotherium when stood eight feet in height. Degeneration through geologic time is the story told by the fossils rather than from small ancestors to large present-day forms. But we will confine our story now to dinosaur and man.

    Giant Tracks
In the May, 1939 issue of Natural History, published by the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, appeared a most significant article by Roland T. Bird of the department of vertebrate paleontology, entitled, "Thunder in his Footsteps." 13 On a field trip through New Mexico, Mr. Bird had discovered some limestone blocks in a river-bed in Texas, in which were impressed the footprints of what appeared to be human bare feet. Yet he finally discounted the possibility of the tracks being human in origin, for as he said, "It was ridiculous to think that they were human footprints. They were too large." Actually the tracks measured, from toe to heel, about eighteen inches, certainly far too large for any modern man. We might wonder if Dr. Bird had read in the Scripture, where it says, "There were giants in the earth in those days."

Before sin, man had access to the tree of life, which contained certain food elements now lacking in the ground which the Almighty has cursed. Millennia of deficiency diets have weakened the human and animal bodies, as well as plants, and left the biological world predisposed to degenerative diseases. Medical science has done wonders in reducing and in some cases eliminating the incidence of infectious diseases, but the degenerative diseases such as cancer, and heart and arterial failures have increased by leaps and bounds.

Fresh from the tree of life, man was able to live some 900 years. Since the Flood we live in a different kind of world, in which the soluble soil minerals are being washed out to the sea, where earth's largest mammals seem to thrive, physically as well as mentally, according to the latest intelligence tests administered to the mammals of the sea.

In the newspapers of New Year's day 1949 there appeared a syndicated feature article by Associated Press writer. Joe Wing, entitled, "Man's Ancestors Possible Giants, New Theory Says." The article then proceeds to elaborate on the comparatively recent discovery of the remains of giants in Java, twice the size of a gorilla. But these giants are still called "ape-man" found near Peking, China, where the dispatch says a 100 pound "ape-man" was found. He is pictured with an oversized jaw and an undersized brain, just to keep up the ape similarity. 14
The third and perhaps most startling discovery was the petrified remains of a giant found in South Africa, and reported by the world-renowned anthropologist, Robert Broom.

After this third giant find, Dr. Hary Shapiro, then head of the American Museum of Natural History, gave his blessings to a new theory recently propounded by Dr. Franz Weidenreich, 15 to the effect that man's ancestors were actually giants. "I believe," he pronounced, "that all these forms have to be ranged in the human line and that line leads back to giants, the farther back it is traced. In other words, the giants may be directly ancestral to man."

In the light of recent giant discoveries, Roland Bird's dismissal of the Glen Rose tracks, as being human because they were too large would seem to be premature to say the least., Dr. Bird's other argument was that the tracks could not be human, as "No man ever existed in the age of reptiles." Here Mr. Bird departs from the principles of Baconian inductive science, and reverts to middle-age authoritarianism, that is deductive reasoning, the type that condemned Galileo to death for maintaining that the earth is round.

Mr. Bird at first admitted that the tracks were apparently human, as he put it, "Perfect in every detail," Mr. Ryals, the guide, soon dug and showed to Dr. Bird one of the giant human tracks in places in the river bed in close association with dinosaur tracks. Then Ryals added, "There used to be a whole trail of them up above the fourth crossing, before the river washed them out." The writer personally interviewed a farmer who had lived near that location, Charles Moss, who also confirmed this account of the whole trail of giant human tracks above the fourth crossing, about a mile upstream from the dinosaur tracks, which the American Museum dug out and shipped to New York.

On a recent trip to the Paluxy River site, another farmer who had lived beside the river most of his life, showed us three more series of human tracks still visible but deeply eroded, and he showed us one place where he had dug up a human track and a dinosaur track in one block of limestone about three feet in diameter. It so happened that Dr. Ernest Booth of Loma Linda University was present, and he corroborated the tracks and identified them as definitely human. The size and stride were almost identical with the tracks once discovered at the White Sands National Park, New Mexico.

Some have doubted the authenticity of the tracks because of rumors that they may be carvings, the time-honored loop-hole for doubters. However it would have been most difficult to carve a series of fifteen or twenty tracks in the river bed, mostly covered with running water. The human tracks were apparently as genuine as the dinosaur tracks. Without naming names, the head paleontologists of the western universities have provisionally identified the tracks as having been made by human beings, even though found in Cretaceous rocks.

In White Sands National Monument, near Alamogordo, New Mexico lie some 175 acres of alabaster white as snow-like sand dunes, slowly advancing toward Alamogordo. This gypsum probably was precipitated as the arid winds dried up an inland sea. As this muddy sediment was beginning to harden, some prehistoric giant apparently walked across this drying lake bed, leaving a series of tracks made by sandalled feet.

From the booklet, entitled, "The Story of the Great White Sands," 16 distributed at the National Monument, a government trapper reported that he had found "human tracks of unbelievable size" imprinted in the gypsum rock on the west side of White Sands. At his suggestion a party was made up to investigate. Mr. Wright served as guide. C. Fred Arthur, supervisor of the Lincoln National Forest, Edgar Cadwallader and one of his sons from Mountain Park, and the writer made up the party."

"As Mr. Wright had reported, there were 13 human tracks crossing a narrow swag, pretty well out between the mountains and the sands. Each track was approximately 22 inches long and from 8 to 10 inches wide. It was the consensus that the track were made by a human being, for the print was perfect and even the instep plainly marked. However, not one of the group cared to venture a guess as to when the tracks were made or how they became their tremendous size. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of the Great White Sands." The extreme size of the tracks may be explained by sandals. No toe marks are visible, but this may be due to erosion from blowing gypsum. However the tracks were apparently made by a biped using a walking stick, for occasional stick point impressions were visible. The stride was from four to five feet, similar to that of the tracks found in the bed of the Paluxy River, Glen Rose, Texas. Furthermore, the size and shape of the feet were similar.

The writer has been shown barefoot tracks of apparently human origin along the Mayo river, near San Bernardo, in Sonora, Mexico, by one of the chiefs of the Mayo Indian tribe. The first impression was that of a carving, but there are tell-tale marks that can always be applied to differentiate. When a human being or any animal with sufficient weight to make an impression in the soft sand or mud steps in the wet material, one of two things happens. (1) If the mud is soft, it will ooze up around the feet and toes, leaving a ridge. 2) If the ground is more solidified so that a shallower impression is made, the insole is depressed under the weight, and a crack appears along the outline of the foot or other weight that makes the impression. In the case of the Mexican tracks, cracks were visible beside the heel mark. The size of the track was about the same as the Glen Rose tracks.

Rumors had been floating out from the Hopi Indian Reservation for some time concerning the existence of human tracks in the Cretaceous limestone of the reservation, until we could no longer resist the temptation to investigate. We found a guide, an Indian by name of Washington, who conducted us to the site of the tracks about ten miles from the nearest village. The Indians told us that formerly many more tracks were visible, but drifting sand had covered most of them, leaving about one acres still bare enough to see tracks.

In this area we found a perfect three-toed dinosaur track, and within a few feet from it the impression of a three-toed wading bird, which was not supposed to have existed in the Cretaceous period. A short distance from these tracks could be seen faint but still visible shallow impressions of what appeared to be heel marks and toe marks, made by feet of ordinary size according to our standards. Erosion had so nearly obliterated the tracks that we would not care to make any claims for them; however the Hopi Indians have always called them "man tracks."

About two hundred miles to the West of the Hopi Reservation, near Ashfork, are many flagstone quarries where some animal tracks have been found, and the writer has conversed with those who claim they have seen perfect tracks made by bare feet, but smaller than the Glen Rose tracks. The formation appears to belong to the Permian. Some of these animal tracks on sandstone slabs were seen for years in the museum of an educational institution in the great southwest. The accompanying shoe impressions appeared in one of these slabs, similar to the one we had seen in the Hopi Reservation.

The standard reaction to these exhibits from paleontologists is the deductive one; man did not exist in the Cretaceous, much less Permian. True Baconian inductive science would reply; Let the evidence speak for itself, and let chips fall where they may.

In a recent issue of the "Brewery Gulch Gazette" 17 published in Tombstone, Arizona is an account of a very important archeolog-ical find by Fred Drake of Benson, Arizona, while on a geophysical survey for a British-American oil company. It consisted of two ribs, parts of a skull, and right foot of a human being. A piece of Palm belonging to the genus Chrysolidcarpus Moncotyledae was found lying a-cross the remains of the foot, thus causing the ankle to be sprained, and the appearance of swelling and dislocated bone was plainly visible. This is to indicate that the owner of the foot was pinned to the earth by the falling of the tree which was found in a petrified condition.

Drake told the News that according to Dr. Ludendorff of Vienna University and Dr. Page, Hansen and Seaborg of Rice and Oxford Universities, this discovery, called Monocanthropodoe Huachucanunsis, becomes the oldest human fossil remains yet found because it was found in Cretaceous or early, Cenozoic formations, so identical by the presence of such foramininfera as Cuneoline pavonia and Lituola Mautiloides.

Of course an overthrust was suggested to explain this association, but how much more evidence will the scientific world need before they accept the fact that the whole gamut of life was contemporaneous in the antediluvian world, as it is today ?

Once more will I refer to the first results from my own research in fossil paleontology in the Petrified Forest and the Grand Canyon, where beautiful pine spores were recovered from the Triassic of the Petrified Forest and also from the Precambrian Hakati shale. Heretofore, only low forms of algae were supposed to have existed in the Precambrian. Slowly but surely these millions and even billions of years are being compressed into terms that even a Bible student can comprehend. The geologic column is about to suffer a major collapse like the giant stars, when the beneficent Creator may again be accorded the honor due to His Holy Name.

1. Smith, David C., Wall Street Journal, June 18, 1964
2. Lyell, Charles, Principles of Geology, vol. 3, p. 1-6
3. Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species 1859.
4. Huxley, Thomas - quoted in "Evolution at the Bar," Phillip Mauro, 1922
5. Huxley, Julian, From speech, delivered at Chicago, 1959, Darwin Centennial.
6. Muller, Herman J. Quoted from speech delivered American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago, 1959
7. Simpson, George Gaylord, The Non-Prevalence of Humanoids, Science, Feb. 21, 1964
8. Rodgers and Dunbar, "Principles of Stratigraphy." 1957
9. Miller, Hugh, Testimony of the Rocks, 1857
10. Robert Oppenheimer, Fred Hoyle, Matthews, Greenstein, Fowler, Theory of Gravitational Collapse of Stars - lectures delivered at Dallas, Texas
11. Newell, Norman, Lecture delivered at American Geological Society, New York City, Dec. 1963.
12. Herbig, George, Lick Observatory, California, Lecture delivered at Flagstaff, Arizona, 1963
13. Bird Roland "Thunder in His Footsteps," Natural History, May 1939
14. Wing, Joe, "Man's Ancestors Possibly Giants." Associated Press Jan. 1, 1949
15. Weidenreich, Franz, "Man, Apes, and Giants."
17. Daker, Fred, Brewery Gulch Gazette, Tombstone, Arizona.


    Shall We Start A Legal Fund?
Mrs. Jean Sumrall and Mrs. Neil Segraves in Los Angeles have been quite successful with the California Board of Education in obtaining two determinations that are favorable to giving creationism an equal chance in our state schools. As the result of their work the Board in California has ruled that: (1) the use of Bible as history or literature is not prohibited in the state schools; only the use of it in worship is prohibited; (2) the teaching of macro-evolution as a doctrine is prohibited to the same extent as the use of the Bible as worship.

These ladies are prepared to institute a suit to prove that macro-evolution is being taught as a doctrine in our state schools and demand that textbooks be rewritten. They are confident they have an air-tight case, since they have been working on the case with lawyers for quite some time. They have hesitated some because they wonder where the new textbooks would come from if the suit were won. Others have assured them the courts would give the schools time to prepare such textbooks. And they have hesitated because it takes money.

For this reason we ask the question of our readers as to whether they feel it would be wise to institute a fund for legal action on this matter. If it were established, it could be established through this Newsletter, administered by the Board of Directors of the Bible-Science Association, Inc. There may be other areas that would want to institute similar suits and possibly all of this could be coordinated. Let us hear from you on this matter.

by Walter Lang

So often, when people discover that we are specializing in Bible and Science relationships they say we are fighting the idea that man came from a monkey. But they are really out of date. It is not popular, even among evolutionists, any longer, to say that man came from a monkey. They would rather speak of some common ancestor for both the monkey and man. Sometimes they speak of seaweed. Sometimes they point to the Dolphin since this is supposed to be one of the most intelligent of animals.

But this change in procedure illustrates how much change there is in scientific circles and in scientific theories. A few years ago Newton's theories were predominant. They have now been replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity. We are told the average life of a scientific theory is 15 years. It seems rather rash to build one's life on theories that change every 15 years.

Rather than study Genesis One and Two verse by verse, a topical study is better. Such topics as Time, God, Different Words for Creation, the Heavens, the Earth, Water, God's and Man's Word, Light, After Its Kind, Plants, God's Goodness, Animals, Man, Two Creation Accounts, the Garden of Eden, and the Institution of Marriage will be considered.

    I.  TIME
Time strikes us at the very beginning of the Bible when we have the time word "In the Beginning." Is this a beginning 6,000 years ago; 10,000; 50,000; millions; or billions of years ago? Most people in the educated world today talk in terms of four to five billion years.

Science has found unusual clocks which determine time right in nature. In man's mind there is a natural arousal center. If we want to arise at 5:00 a.m., we can make up our mind to this and usually will awaken at this time.
There is the 17-year locust, the Cicada. It stays in the ground for exactly 17 years. Right on time it crawls out of the hole, fastens its claws On a trunk of a tree, branch, or leaf. Then it waits a while and soon everything it needs to fly is there. The next morning it begins a great noise. The female egg is placed deep in the branches. The female dies. The male continues his noise for a while and he dies. The eggs hatch in six or seven weeks. The tiny locusts drop to the ground, dig rapidly in the earth, remain there exactly another 17 years and continues the cycle. They have a time mechanism built in them.

Nature also reveals that as things approach the speed of light, time slows down. A person could go to the star Sirius, nine light years away we are told, all he would need would be a sack lunch, even if the round trip would be 18 years, for to him the time would seem to be no more than one day. But all his friends would be 18 years older. Even in science Time is not a fixed thing. So when people speak of things many million light-years away, this is also relative.

    "In the Beginning"
The very first word in the Bible is "In the Beginning," in the Hebrew: "Bereshith." This word shows the world had a beginning. From ancient times people have tried to make matter eternal. This is especially what people are attempting to do today when they speak so glibly of matter being millions and billions of years old. But the first word in the Bible sets itself as squarely against modern attempts to make matter eternal as it did against the attempts of ancient philosophers and religions to do the same thing. We can say matter is immortal. The Bible speaks of a new heavens and a new earth and that could be our present earth and heaven restored. We know as Christians that our bodies will rise again as fleshly bodies. But, even though matter can be immortal, this first word of the Bible shows it cannot be eternal. It had a beginning.

    Dating Age of the Earth
Even though we do insist on a young earth, we cannot exactly date its age. There is a possibility there were lapses in the genalogies of Genesis 5 and 11. However we do believe that all the formations and phenomena that we observe could have been produced within six thousand years. But if some believe it was seven thousand years, ten thousand years, we cannot gainsay them. We must insist however on a young earth.

The word "In the Beginning" also demonstrates that we are dealing with history. There are many who claim the first eleven chapters of Genesis teach good spiritual lessons, but are not factual, are not truly historical. But this word "In the Beginning" points out we are dealing with factual history.

    The Word "Day"
The most controversial word in Genesis One and Two is the word "Day." We hold for the position that this is a solar day. There is a possibility it was not exactly a 24-hour day. Even as Velikovsky in his "Worlds in Collison." indicates that possibly the year was 360 days long before Hezekiah's time, and 365 1/4 days long afterwards, so there could be some variation in the time of a solar day. Today it is 24 hours. Even though we allow this variation, it does not mean that we speak in terms of a day being a week or a thousand years or anything like that, and particularly not a million years, as this word "day" comes to us in Genesis One and Two.

We also allow there is a possibility that the day might mean something else than a natural day or a solar day in Gen. 1:5 when it says, "And God called the light Day." And in Gen. 2:2. 3 when it speaks of the seventh day, this does not have the designation of "evening and morning." And Gen. 2:4 says that when God made the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." This might refer to the entire process of creation. Then we have the problem of how the first three days of creation could be solar days, when the sun, moon, and stars were not yet made.

Even in Gen. 1:5 and Gen. 2:4 the word day could mean a natural or solar day, something very close to if not exactly like our 24 hour day.

But in the other references, for the six days of creation, as we have it in Gen. l:5b; 1:8; 1:13; 1:19; 1:23; 1:31 we have no choice as Biblical scholars, following the rules of interpretation the Bible gives us. There are four compelling reasons why we must consider these days as natural days, as solar days, very close to our 24-hour day, if not exactly the same. They are:

1 -- The natural meaning of the word "day" is that of a natural day, a solar day. And we always take a word in its natural meaning in the Bible, unless the context forces us to do otherwise.

2 -- We have the designation "evening and morning." This is the Hebrew's way of saying about the same as our 24-hours. They began their day in the evening whereas we usually think of the day beginning in the morning. This means that Moses clearly wanted us to consider these as natural or solar days.

3 -- We have the designation "first," "second," "third," "fourth," "fifth," "sixth," and even "seventh." And whenever the word "day" in the Bible is used with such a cardinal number, it always means a natural day; what we think of when we speak of a 24-hour day. Since these cardinal numbers are used here, we are forced to think of a natural day.

4 -- We have Ex. 20:11; "For in six days the Lord made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." The entire purpose of Moses' statement here is to show that the seventh day of the week, a natural or a solar day, a day like our 24-hour day, was to be observed by the Jews for the purpose of rest and worship. And to back that up Moses says, under inspiration, that God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The entire argumentation would lose its force, if these were not natural or solar days, such as we have in our week of seven days.

Sometimes people quote Ps. 90:4 or 2 Pet. 3:8, which seems to be Peter's quotation of Psalm 90. There it speaks of a day of the Lord being a thousand years and a thousand years being as one day. People use this to show the word "day" in Gen. 1 could be a long period of time. Suppose we would allow that and have Moses and Peter say it this way: "A long period of time is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a long period of time." Can't you see the entire force of argumentation both in Psalm 90 and 2 Pet. 3 would be lost! Even in these passages the word "day" must mean a natural day, a solar day, like our 24-hour day if the argumentation is to mean anything.

Henry Morris, one of the authors of "The Genesis Flood," and the author of "Twilight of Evolution," (which is now available at a reasonable figure in paperback) wrote an essay in June 1963, for the meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, entitled "No Compromise." In this he demonstrated that to ascribe a thousand years or a million years to each of  the six days of creation does not really harmonize the Bible and the theory of macro-evolution. The way the macro-evolutionists develop the world does not bear any resemblance to the order of the days we have in Genesis One and Two. The macro-evolutionists despise the Christians who try to harmonize. They challenge the Christians to go all the way and to make the first eleven chapters no more than a myth, a legend, teaching spiritual lessons and that is all. And, unfortunately, many nominal Christians do just that. But this illustrates we either accept what the Bible says or what macro-evolution says. There is no possibility of compromise between them.

    Velikovsky's Book
At this point may I call your attention to an interesting theory of Immanuel Velikovsky, who wrote "The Worlds in Collision" in 1950. His two theories were that during the time of Moses a comet of great size came close to the earth, bringing on great catastrophic changes similar to those during the flood, and later became the planet Venus. His other theory is that during Hezekiah's time, when the dial went back some degrees, this was due to Mars coming close to both Venus and Earth and slowing up the Earth, so that the year became somewhat longer. He quoted myths, legend and accounts of tribes all over the world to point out that before Moses' time they all knew of only four planets and afterwards they all knew of five. And before Hezekiah's time they all had a year of 360 days and afterwards all had a year of 365 1/4 days as we have it. It is interesting to observe that at that time, in 1960, Velikovsky also predicted a magnetic field beyond the earth, radio signals from Jupiter, and that Mars was very hot. This has all been confirmed lately. All of this is no more than a theory and many of Velikovsky's methods leave much to be desired, but it points out the possibility of catastrophes to explain our geological formations, rather than these vast periods of time.

    II.   GOD
Before discussing the matter of "God" in the first two chapters of Genesis it is well to consider various theories on creation.

    Theories of Creation
First we have theistic evolution. Such who accept this often believe in the Trinity and in the virgin birth, but they believe God operated by evolution. They make the "day" a long period of time.

Then we have the progressive creation theory. It says at times God created, when vertical progress in living organisms was called for. Otherwise there was evolutionary development. These also believe in the millions of years and that Genesis "days" were long periods of time.

Then there is the gap theory. It was first promoted by Chalmers and made popular by Scofield, who put it into his Bible. It believes that when Gen. 1:2 says "without form and void . . . darkness," this refers to something evil. It believes God made one world. When the angels fell and became devils, the theory holds this world was destroyed. After that God made the heavens and earth as we have it recorded in Genesis One and Two. This theory accepts literal interpretation, verbal inspiration, the Trinity; all the fundamental doctrines. This theory believes the stars were present from a previous world and a cloud cover was removed on the fourth day so they could be seen.

There are those who believe the first eleven chapters of Genesis are merely poetical and not true history. They teach spiritual lessons. They believe the world itself came into being by straight macro-evolution. They believe the Genesis accounts were taken over from Babylonian mythologies and others.

All people holding these theories want to believe in God and consider themselves Christians. If they are accused of making matter eternal rather than God, they deny it vehemently. But is their concept of God the same as we find it in the first two chapters of the Bible, not to say anything of the rest of the Bible?

    God of  "Elohim"
The word for God, which is used 31 times in Genesis One, and 45  times  in Genesis  One  and Two is  "Elohim" which is a plural word. Yet it is always used with a singular verb. For Christians this poses no problem as they find the Trinity in this word. God does not reveal the Trinity in nature but only in the Bible, even the very first chapter.

There is the word for "Spirit" in verse 3. This is clearly a reference to the third person in the Trinity. It says the Spirit of God brooded on the face of the waters. There are some who feel this is no more than the breath of God, since the word for "Spirit," "ruach" comes from a derivation meaning "breath." Knowing how much reference to the Trinity there is in this chapter, we find here a reference to the third person in the Trinity. "God Said" - Jesus
We find a reference to the second person in the Trinity in "and God Said," which is "wajamar" in the original. This is used ten times in Genesis One. When we compare John 1 in the New Testament we learn the Word of God is that One Who tabernacled among us, and for that reason we think of the Word of God as Jesus. So we find a reference to Jesus in this expression "and God said."

    "Let Us Make Man"
A reference to the Trinity is found again in v. 26 when it says "Let us make man." Although this is considered by some to be no more than the majestic plural, we feel, in the light of everything else we find in the first chapter, that here we have a reference to the Trinity.

    "Create" in Gen.  1:27
The fact that the word "create" is used in Gen. 1:27 three times might also be reference to the Trinity. This verse is more poetry than the rest of the chapter. After Moses tells us that God had reached the climax of creation and made man, he sings about it.

Also the use of the words "ended," "rested," and "rested" in Genesis 2: 1,2,3 might be a reference to the Trinity.

    "Without Form and Void . . . Darkness."
The use of these words in Gen. 1:2, which in the original are "tohu wabohu . . . koshek," has puzzled many people. They seem on the surface to be a reference to evil. Is 49:19 uses the first two words to refer to the waste and desolate places of Israel which shall be inhabited. We have the use of the word "and God saw it was good" six times in this first chapter, and v. 31 we have the remark "and God saw that it was very good." We could hardly find anything evil in these words in the light of these statements. So we look for another meaning. Considering the strong emphasis on the Trinity in these two chapters, we feel these words rather show the need of the work of the Trinity.

First we consider the word "without form." We feel this shows the need for the Father, who put form into the primordial substance.

Then we think of the word "void" or something that has no life. We find the Spirit brooding on the face of the waters and imparting substance or life. We feel here we see the need of the work of the third person in the Trinity, the Spirit, whose special task it is to impart life.

Then we think of the word "darkness." Since it says clearly that "God said, let there be light and there was light," v. 3, it is clear that the second person in the Trinity, Jesus, the Word of God, in "God said" is the one who created light. The expression "darkness" would indicate the need for the work of the second person in the Trinity.
Thus these words; without form, void . . . darkness; do not imply anything evil but rather show the need of the work of all three persons of the Trinity in creating the world.

Some feel this would be dragging the Trinity into these chapters and the Trinity is not there as we have outlined. We like to refer to John 5:39 where Jesus tells the Pharisees that they were studying the Old Testament but were not finding real life because they were not finding Him. This would point out that we should find Jesus more, not less, in the Old Testament. And if we are to find Jesus more, we must find the Trinity more, because Jesus and the Trinity are bound up with each other. This is the reason we believe that God wants us to find the Trinity more, not less in the Old Testament.

The use of the word "God" or "Lord God" in the first two chapters shows that Moses wanted to find God more than anything else in creation. He was showing that not the mythological heroes of the ancients made the world, neither was matter eternal and to be worshipped as the ancients did. But God made the world and only God, the Triune God, is to be worshipped. We even have the covenant name for God "Lord," "Jehovah," used 14 times with "God" or "Elohim" in the second chapter. Thus the word "God" is used 45 times and the word "Lord" is used 14 times. This proves that matter is not eternal but is a product of the mind of God. We are not to worship matter, as we do when we make matter millions of years and even billions of years old. We are not to make matter eternal but only God is eternal.

    What Darwin Should Have Known
Now we want to turn to the different words for "create and "make" stated in these first two chapters. If Darwin had known the significance of the different kinds of words used, he might never have written his book "The Origin of the Species." He thought the Bible taught that all species were made fixed at the beginning and that no variety has been possible since. This was a current scientific theory and taught by theologians as a Bible teaching. Then he discovered strong evidences of change and variation in his five-year trip around the world. This made him feel the Bible was wrong and he gave up the Bible. Then he jumped to another wrong conclusion. Because he could find demonstrated variation and change from species to species, he felt there must be change from kind to kind. But for this he had no evidence, only speculation. And on that speculation he developed his theories of evolution which have had such a profound influence on intellectual society ever since.

The Bible does allow variation and change. Not all species were made during creation week, just as they are now. In fact, not everything need have been made out of nothing. We must be careful not to make current scientific theory Bible teaching. We must be careful not to say any more than the Bible says. And, when we study the various words for "create," "make," etc. we find the Bible is not as inflexible as we first might have thought.

This word definitely means to make something out of nothing. It is found in Gen. 1:1, 21, three times in v. 27, in Gen. 2:3-4, where we have sort of a title for the second creation account. The word is always used of God in the Bible. It seems rather clearly to mean that at least the primordial substances were completely made from God's mind, out of nothing. Then it speaks of the "whale" being "created," when animal life first is introduced. And it speaks of man being "created," when man was given a soul. The word is "bara" in the original.

The word our King James has translated "moved" is "merkepheth," "brooded." The word seems to mean that it was the Spirit Who imparted life and substance to the primordial material. A new element is present but one which works with material already there. Thus we see that not everything necessarily has to be made completely out of nothing.

    "Let There Be"
We have this in "let there be light," v. 3; in "let there be a firmament" in v. 6; in "Let the waters be gathered together under the heaven," v. 9. After it we have "and it was so." The Bible here does not rule out that God could have made light from substance already formed; or the water or the sea or the firmament. The original here is "jehi."

The expression "let the dry land appear," is in v. 9. This is "teraeh" in the original. Again we do not have to insist that God made dry land completely out of nothing. Land may have been there and then appeared out of the sea. There is a difference between "dry land" and earth."

    "Bring Forth"
We have the word "bring forth," Gen. 1:11, 12, 20, 24 speaking of grass, herb, tree, waters, animals, fishes. God could, according to this word, have used substances from earth and water to make these plants and creatures. This is permissible in the words and their use. In fact, when it says the earth and the waters did bring forth, we are almost compelled to believe that God did make plants, fishes, and animals out of substances already made. It did however, take the Word of God to take these substances and make plants, animals, fishes. They did not come spontaneously, of themselves. The original word is "telzea."

This word speaks in v. 7, of the firmament in 16 of the two great lights in 25, of the beast of the earth, in 26 of man. In ch. 2:2 is stated that God rested from all he had "made." The word is used of everything God had done in the six days. In 2:3 we find that God rested from all He had created and "made." There the word seems to be used synonymously with "create." Gen. 1:31 says God saw everything He had made and it was very good. Gen. 2:4 speaks of the day in which the Lord made earth and heavens. Gen. 2:9 says God "made to grow out of the ground every tree that was pleasant." This would point to God "making things grow out of substance He had already made. Gen. 2:18 says God would "make" a helpmeet for for Adam. Man was formed out of the dust of the ground and this is called "making." Whether we claim that "create" and "make" are used interchangeably or not, at least we cannot be dogmatic and say that God made everything in the first six days completely out of nothing. The original for "make" is "asah."

This word is used of man in Gen. 1:27, "man was formed out of the dust of the ground. Gen. 1:19 says that every beast of the field was formed out of the ground. This word seems to imply something more than "let there be" or "make" or "bring forth." God took more pains in forming man, and even animals. Men claim because human beings are similar to monkeys or frogs, man descended from them. Similarity is no real proof for that. But here we can see why God possibly made animals similar to man, since both were "formed." There can be other reasons for similarity than that this be proof man descended from animals. The original here is "yatzar."

We have one more word, "build," Gen. 2:22 used only of the making of Eve. King James version says "make" here.

Throughout Genesis One and Two the best and most exalted things are made last. We find man is made last and is the crown of creation. We find woman made after Adam and not formed from the dust of the ground, but built from the rib of Adam, even though she also goes back to dust when she dies. There is a glory in her that Adam does not have. Paul in 1 Cor. 11:7 says "woman is the glory of man." Woman is the final glory of creation, more beautiful and lovable than man. God has given some of his greatest blessings to womanhood.

The word "build," which is "bin" in the original, indicates again that God took primordial substances and made other things out of them. Here he made woman out of a rib. But suppose we tried to make a woman out of a rib. It still takes the Word of God to do this.
(Continued on page 6)

We should allow that God took substances to make other creations. We should also allow that there can be development from species to species within the kind.

    Dark Nebulae
Recently I heard of a report Dr. Werner Von Braun gave to a graduating class at an Iowa school in 1964. He told how much we have learned about space, about the heavens. We are now talking about four hundred billion stars. They seem to us vast distances away. We speak of vast galaxies of stars. We are in the Milky Way galaxy containing many stars millions of miles away, we are told. And there are supposed to be many more galaxies farther away than the Milky Way.

Recently men have discovered what they think are Dark Nebulae. They find dark stretches in their telescopes first believed to be empty space, now believed to be a galaxy or world where there is no light. They speculate our universe was first a dark nebulae, and some find an explanation of "without form and void . . . darkness."

    Gamow's Big-Bang Theory
We are urged to believe there was a great explosion which gave birth to our universe. This is based on observations which seemed to indicate our universe is expanding. Recently, scientists have found a star "Sirius" which they believe has collapsed. In December 1963, leading scientists assembled in Dallas and proposed the collapse theory, the opposite of Gamow's Big-Bang theory.

    Steady-State Theory
Fred Hoyle proposed another theory where things are constantly being created without any reason or explanation. Suddenly they are there. He still does not want to accept a Creator.

    Reihmanian Space Theory
Some mathematicians from Harvard have proposed a theory that would make all the stars no more than fifteen light days apart. This is based on a non-Euclidian form of mathematics.

All these theories show how uncertain scientists are about space, how it was formed, how it is maintained. It demonstrates we should be prepared for vast changes in thinking and theories as more evidence comes in.

    "Heavens" and "Firmament"
Genesis One and Two always uses the word "heavens," "sham-aim," in the plural. It is found eleven times in the two chapters; nine times in chapter one and twice in chapter two. In 2 Cor. 12 St. Paul says he is caught up to the third heaven. The first heaven might be the sky above us, the second might be space, the third, the spiritual heaven. If space seems infinite "to us now, how much more glorious must not the third heaven be?

The word "firmament" is used eight times in the first chapter. Four times it is used with the second day. It is used alone and speaks of that which separates the waters above from those beneath. Four times it is said together with the fourth day, when the constellations were made; the sun, moon, stars. Does it refer to the sky above us or all of space? It seems to be used both ways. When it speaks of the fourth day it seems to refer to space, because the constellations are placed in it. In 2:19 we find the birds flying through it and this makes us think of the sky above us.

There is much about the heavens we do not know even with our telescopes and space exploration. Stars and space are not eternal, nor practically so. They had a beginning and will have an ending. There will be a new heaven and earth, 2 Pet. 3.

    V. EARTH
One of the strongest arguments for an old earth, as used by the scientists today, has been the argument from rocks. They claim rocks are billions of years old. They base their proof on fossils. The fossil people, however, claim their fossils are so old because of the age of the rocks. Thus we have an argument in a circle, a begging of the question, which has been carried on for a number of generations.

Recently this bad argumentation has been saved from ridicule by radioactive dating. This is supposed to prove conclusively the earth is millions and billions of years old. It is claimed this dating process can't be changed. But they do not know what appearance of age the Lord might have put into tilings at the beginning, and they are discovering the rate of emission in this process is not as constant as they once insisted it was.

    "Earth" or "haretz"
In the first two chapters we have the word "haretz" or "earth" from the thought of "being firm." It is contrasted to the heavens. In v. 10 the dry land is "earth" over against "seas." The earth brings forth grass, herbs, living creatures, trees, cattle, creeping things, beasts as in v. 11, 25-28. We have "heavens and earth" in 2:1. We have this again in 2:4 when the second creation account is begun. In 2:5 the earth brings forth plants and grows them. A mist comes from the earth in 2:6 to water everything rather than rain. The word "earth" is used 16 times in the first chapter distinguishing it from heavens, from waters.

Besides the word for "dry land" which we have in v. 9, which is the "earth" in a narrower sense, especially as it brings forth herbs, seeds, trees, fowls, cattle, creeping things, wild beasts, we have the word "ground" or "adamah." We have this in 2:5, 7, 9, 19. Man was made out of the dust of the ground. God the Lord made every tree grow out of the ground, including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. God formed every beast out of the ground. It is used four times in chapter 2. The word "Adam" comes from it.

Another word connected with "earth," is "dust," or "aphar" in the original. 2:7 says man was made out of the dust of the ground. 3:19 says man would return to dust from whence he came as a punishment for sin. We return to dust when we die, but our bodies are raised again on the last day.

We see the vast contrast in the way the Bible presents the creation of the Earth out of nothing, at the beginning; how it pictures waters beneath, and how the earth comes out of the water, how it is composed of dry land, ground, and dust in contrast to the picture coming to the modern mind today, which thinks of a big explosion, of gases forming, of rocks millions of years old. The modern mind is more concerned With the so-called great age of the earth than it is with its productivity and does not want to know that it came from God. The Bible sanctifies our research and sets our mind on the right track. We are better scientists, as well as better Christians, when we build on what Scripture says.

2 Pet. 3:15 speaks of the world in old time standing in and out of water. There is much about water in the first chapter of Genesis. Some claim this is because Palestine was a dry country, and the author of Genesis was concerned about water as a personal matter. It is much deeper than that. Water perhaps should have a greater place in our scientific research than it has.

The word "swarm" in 1:20 "bring forth abundantly," "yish-retzu" in the original, indicates there are many fish in the seas and the waters of the sea produced fish by the Word of God. The variety and abundance of fish in the sea, as we discover today, is remarkable. Water is not dead, but living. Some say we have not even begun to tap the food in the sea, especially when we think of algae.

    Fishes and Birds
In connection with water and seas we find the creation of whales, fishes, birds. One wonders why "create" is used with whales in 1:21, the same word "bara" we have in 1:1. But here is the first reference to animal life. God has to make something out of nothing to create this first evidence of animal life.

Why were fishes and birds made on the same day? They are somewhat alike in their structure. They both adapt remarkably to environment.

    The Grunion
The grunion is a fish which lays its eggs in the sand exactly at the right month, the right day, the right hour. It must be very exact or the tides would destroy it or its eggs. This did not occur by chance. God determines this and wonderfully adapts the grunion to its environment and needs. The migratory powers of birds are most remarkable. The homing instinct of the pigeon is amazing. The Pacific Golden Plover has a remarkable ability to find its way from Alaska to Hawaii, even though it never has been over the route before. The Arctic Tern can find its way from one pole to another, making a tremendous flight of over 22,000 miles.

    The Flood
Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in their book "The Genesis Flood" feel the statement about waters above and beneath in 1:7 and the earth standing in and out of the water in 2 Pet. 3:5 means that before the Flood there literally were many more waters above us than now. These shielded out harmful radiation and made the climate of the world much more ideal. The ground was watered from a mist. This meant there were fewer storms than we have now, or perhaps none. They feel the world was much more ideal before the Flood than afterwards. It appears that it was too good for man, so at the time of the Flood only eight righteous people were left in the world. God sent the Flood, and since the flood the world has been a much rougher place in which to live. There is a possibility that mountain ranges, the extremes of climate, the storms, as well as the rainbow, did not exist before the flood.

    Constitution of Water
Since water is so important in the first two chapters of the Bible, it is well that we remind ourselves of the properties of water It is composed of two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen. It freezes only on top, so that fish and other forms of sea life can live underneath and is the only substance in nature having this quality. It forms snow and the snow flake. There are no two snow-flakes alike. Think of what a blessing snow is. We see the glorious providence and handiwork of a Designer, of God, of a mind, in the blessing of water. No wonder that Jesus tells the Samaritan woman in John 4 that He is the Water of life. As water is a blessing, Jesus is even a greater blessing for us in His eternal salvation.

Now we turn to the use of "Word" in these first two chapters, as in the ten times we have "And God said." Science has learned much about speech, the mouth, the ear, sound waves, and how we communicate thought. It tells us how sound waves are reproduced, and how they are received in the ear. It tells us about the wonders of the inner ear, about the cochlea, about the tiny bones that remain the same size from birth on. It tells us how wonderfully we produce speech. It tells us something about the speed of sound as compared to the speed of light.

Yet it cannot give us the origin of speech. It cannot tell us about the greatest speech of all, the Word of God which gives us the salvation of Christ. It cannot tell us how Christ can be the Word of God as stated in John 1. It claims man's speech and thought are the development of the grunts of animals. This sounds more like a theory, like a game, than reality.

Today it is claimed that all matter is made out of three building blocks; proton, electron, and neutron. They are held together in a wonderful way, even as the stars and the planets are held together in space. There must be an outside force holding all this together and keeping it in place. Scientists used to say this was a cosmic ray, until they have learned more of these cosmic rays coming in from outer space. We Christians feel this is the Word of God, Christ Col. 1:1 says that Christ holds all things together; in Him all things "consist," or are held together. Heb. 1:3 says all things are upheld by the Word of His power.

Even as God's Word is remarkable and powerful so is the speech of man. God talked with Adam and Eve and we have no indication He did this with the animals. Man's superiority is much in his speech similar to the Word of God.

The greatest Word we have is not the Word that made and keeps the world, the word we have in our speech, but the word we have in the Bible, whose center is Christ. It not only creates and upholds, but it recreates, after we resist. God's greatest power is in the Bible. Christ is the center of the Bible and science. Science finds its highest position only in Christ. The Word of God is very Important in creation, in man, and in our salvation in Christ.

Light is the first thing made after heaven and earth were created, 1:3. The Sun, Moon, and Stars are light bearers, The distinction between day and night is connected with light, which rules the day.

Sometimes scientists speak of the wave theory, when they try to analyze light, with light as a series of waves. They speak of the quantum theory, making light a series of jumps. It seems light has both qualities. But we really do not know. We do know light is vital. Already, through the laser ray, we are beginning to use the power of light, even as we use the power of gasoline, steam, electricity, nuclear energy.

Henry Morris in the Creation Research Annual for 1964 says that if we would take away the sun, which transmits much energy to the world by its light, we would have enough energy in the earth to keep it going for three days. Light is energy and gives us energy.

In 1956 Aime Michel, a Frenchman, published a book, called "The Truth About Flying Saucers." He found people having seen flying saucers already in 1870. He feels there is substance to them, and that their power is light power. He feels our present means of trying to conquer space is too expensive and that we will possibly have to find a power derived from light, before we can effectively conquer space.

Genesis One shows that light is the work of Jesus, the Word of God. Light is the first thing created of an orderly nature. Water might have existed before but not with form or substance. Light seems to be essential. Light could be a combination of substances, because "let there be light" in 1:3 allows this.

    "Light Holders"
The constellations made in 1:14-18; the sun, moon, and stars, are not called "lights," "oroth," but "light-holders" "moroth." God made light separate from the sun, moon, and stars. Now that they are made they are a source of light for us.

    What is a Kind
Scientists challenge people such as the creationist biologist, Frank Marsh, to define "kind," for science does not have this classification. He says it is that which will not cross. He distinguishes between species and kind.
The word "kind" or "min" is used ten times in Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24 for herbs, grasses, fruit trees, birds, fishes, cattle, creeping things, beasts whales and man.

Scientists have developed many species and are classifying more and more. Because we can demonstrate a development from some species to another they claim proof of development from what we call kind to kind. They do not distinguish carefully.

Elaborate charts have been developed to show how a small, three-toed horse evolved into the present many types of horses. This does not prove evolution. It only proves that species can develop within the kind. You might be able to prove the development of the horse, but not a development from a horse to a cow. There were only seven horses coming out of the ark. All the rest of the species of horses developed out of these seven.

    Mendel's Laws
If Darwin had known Mendel's laws he might never have written his "Origin of the Species." Mendel was a priest living at the time of Darwin, who studied the laws of interbreeding. He worked with sweet peas. He discovered laws showing there is 25% possibility in one direction, 25% possibility in another and 50% in another. He found the law of recessive genes. In spite of the many advances which have been made in the science Of genetics since his time, especially in learning about the genes, chromosomes, RNA and DNA factors, these laws still stand. These laws also demonstrate there is a law of the lower limit. This means that one can produce change so far, and that is as far as one can go, even within the kind. For example, the sugar content of the sugar beet was increased 40% from 1870-1900. Since that time no more sugar content could be added. This is as far as the scientists could go. The same thing is true of hybrid corn. Today they are no longer able to produce hybrid corn giving greater yield. They have reached their limit.

Another remarkable statement of Genesis One and Two is that the original diet was a vegetable one. Some feel that animals could hardly be changed so much by the fall of man, giving them teeth and stomachs they did not have before. But sin brought on vast changes. We are not told that permission was given to man to eat meat until Gen. 9:3, after the flood.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden was a test, the simplest test God could give Adam and Eve and they did not keep the test. The tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life were in the center of the Garden, in a sort of natural Temple, where Adam and Eve were to worship.

One of the arguments in the Bible-Science field is whether faith in the millions of years and in the development of man from lower forms reduces a moral standard. The proponents of Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creation deny this. They claim they are as good Christians as anyone. Yet, these same people do not believe the world was made perfect, do not hold that sin changed everything.

One of the arguments of the modern mind is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are poetical and not true historically or scientifically. They allow for mistakes in the accounts. They lose the spiritual power of these chapters, for it depends on the chapters being perfect. Six times we have the word "and God saw that it was good," in chapter one, with the last time the statement being "very good." This means the world was made perfect, without mistake. The world was not a gradual development.

Then came the fall of man. Sin entered the world. Everything was changed. Even the animals changed and elements of nature. Unless we know and recognize this we lose our sense of the power of sin. We do not have the complete dependence on Christ we must have.

The expression "and God saw that it was good" is used twice on the third day and not at all on the second. Some believe the work of the second day did not become completed until the water and the land were separated, as we have it recorded in the first part of the third day. For this reason, perhaps, Moses waited with this expression until the middle of the third day.

Animals are much like men to be good companions for men. This does not make them man's ancestors.
They were made on the sixth day. Cattle, domesticated animals; beasts, wild animals, and creeping things are distinguished. The Bible does not claim to be exhaustive. These distinctions are not "kinds" but only general divisions for hearers and readers.

Animals are made out of the dust of the ground 1:24, where it says the earth brought them forth; 1:25 where it says they were made out of earth; 2:19 where it says they were made out of the ground, even as Adam was.

    Animals Named
God, no doubt, made the animals male and female from the beginning. When Adam named all of them, he could see how he was missing something. We find a general rule in the order of creation. First, heaven and earth to prepare for light and sky. Then light and sky to prepare for planets, along with water. Then planets and trees as food for animal life. Then fishes, birds, animals. Then man was made, with everything having been prepared for him. Imagine God making man, without having made food for him to eat or air for him to breathe. Man was made much higher than animals.

    Wonderfully Made
Man is wonderfully made. Think of the eye. It is better than any camera focusing automatically, giving color and motion. The nerves in the eye carry information to the brain. The most expensive camera cannot equal our eye.
The ear has an outer and inner ear, tranferring air waves to liquid waves. The cochlea reproduces at least 2500 shades of sound.

The heart pumps 12 pints of blood through hundreds of thousands of miles of blood vessels every minute. In one day it pumps enough to fill a large gasoline truck to overflowing. In a life-time of 70 years it pumps enough blood to fill a string of tank cars fifty miles long. It beats two and one-half million times without a shutdown for repairs. The Bible account of creation satisfies reason much better than to explain this by chance.

    The Soul
The strange fact is that the Hebrew word for "soul" "nephesh" is used both for the soul of man and for life-principle in animals. Many say that the soul is part of the body and neither soul or body will rise. But God separates soul and body in Matt. 10:28, and both will be united on the last day. The soul or spirit of man cannot be explained by the test tube of science or by science's psychology. We must judge the use of the word "soul" or "nephesh" by the context.

    Image of God
1:27 says Man was made in the image of God. Because of Eph. 4:24 and Col. 3:10 we think that the image of God was the holiness of God and the knowledge of God. Adam and Eve lost this when they fell into sin. We regain it through Christ and have it perfectly in heaven.

Man is made last of all. He is the crown of creation. The world exists for the sake of man. Man in perfection worked hard. He ruled over the world. Today his rule is not as great as it was then.

    Institution of Marriage
The last part of chapter two gives the institution of marriage. Woman was made, given to man, became one of his own, flesh of his flesh. Moses under inspiration says that a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh. Jesus uses this in Matt. 19 to show that marriage should be between one man and one woman and should be for life.

Woman was not taken from the head to lord it over man, or from the feet to be in subjection in an abject way. But she was taken from the side, to show she is equal to man. She is subject to him for the sake of order, not because of inferiority.

There is such an intimate relationship in marriage because husband and wife become one flesh. This makes for the greatest of earthly happiness. If worldly pleasures were sinful then the institution of marriage would be sinful. But it was conceived in perfection.

Woman is here placed on a pedestal. This is the great thing that distinguishes the Christian religion from a heathen one. Christianity makes woman subject to man for the sake of order, and then places her on a pedestal and gives her honor and reverence no other religion gives. She has a glory man does not have.

There are striking differences between the creation account in Gen. 1:1 - 2:3 and that of Gen. 2:4 - 25. The word "God," is used exclusively in the first and the word "Lord God" only in the second. The second gives details of the creation of Eve not found in the first. The love of God in creating the garden of Eden is only in the second.
The use of the word "jahve" or "Jehovah" which our King James translates "Lord" is found first in Gen. 2:4. It refers to the covenant God, the God of love.

We find some difficulty in having everything made in the sixth day as the second account describes it. This means God made animals on the sixth day, creeping things, man, the Garden of Eden naming the animals, placing Adam into a deep sleep, creating woman and instituting marriage.

In the first account the word "blessing" refers to reproduction, in the second it refers to other blessings.

In the first account, the word "day" generally means about 24 hours a solar day. Gen. 2:4 could mean that, but it could also mean a broader day, the day when the Lord made heavens and earth.

Many say there are two opposing accounts. Some say Moses wrote one and another writer the other later. We are sure Moses wrote all of it. Jesus indicates this in the New Testament. There is no real conflict between the two accounts. The second account is more concerned with man and things concerning him than the first is.
The Garden of Eden probably was somewhere in the Middle East, connected with the Tigres and Euphrates rivers we know today. The fall of man, the curse, their being driven out, the flood, all could have changed geography greatly, making it difficult to find today. We must consider the Garden as historically true and basic for our hope and our salvation.

The two chapters of Genesis considered contradict none of the facts of science, but give that which helps the scientists, keeps them from wasting time, gives them solid foundation, makes them better scientists. Above all, it shows the need of Jesus and leads us to His salvation. It should be considered as perfect, as historic, as factual. This also makes us better Christians and better theologians. May this discussion assist in making the readers better scientists and better Christians.

by Wilbert Rusch

As with so many words we use today, it is not certain that the precise meaning of the term 'science' is always understood. I remember attending a graduate seminar where the whole period was devoted to arriving at a consensus of what the word 'science' really meant, and there was much discussion with considerable disagreement. The word 'science' is derived from the Latin 'scire' meaning 'to know.' It is believed that the first public use of the word was perhaps in the title "The British Association for the Advancement of Science," founded in 1831. The word 'science' implies the collective human knowledge in any field of study, but is ordinarily applied to any organized field of study investigated by the scientific method, and to any practical application of the body of facts obtained by such investigatlon. Since we are forced into an increasing specialization of endeavor science is today divided into a number of fields, each of which is known as a 'science.' Many agree that the natural sciences, parts of psychology, and such parts of the social sciences as anthropology, some sociology, and some economics are true sciences.

It might also be well to point out the relation between the various fields of science. The natural sciences deal with that body of knowledge concerned with matter; matter in the very small, as in the basic particles that make up the atoms, ranging all the way to matter in the very large, that which collectively we call the universe. The natural sciences are subdivided into physical sciences and biological sciences. Some will call for a third subdivision, the earth sciences, while others will consider them as belonging to the physical sciences. Each of these major groups is then further subdivided. For example, the physical sciences are represented by physics and chemistry; the biological sciences by botany and zoology; and the earth sciences by geology and geography, and possibly astronomy.

All of these subdivisions today run into each other. It has become increasingly difficult to teach biology without a basic knowledge of some physics and chemistry; astronomy while out in space, still deals with the basic laws of physics; and geology is becoming increasingly tied up with physics and chemistry. Of the three major groups, the physical sciences have the advantage that they are characterized by a relatively large number of verifiable explanations called hypotheses as well as some hypotheses which have not been verified. The biological and earth sciences are characterized by very few verifiable hypotheses with mostly hypotheses which have not and cannot, by their very nature be verified.

For the last one hundred and fifty years, we of the Western world have been living in various scientific ages. For example, prior to about 1890, we were in the mechanical age; this was followed by the electrical age, and since 1942, we have been living in the atomic age. Today, particularly in America, science in all its phases has become a mighty factor in our personal lives.

In these cold war times, we are depending on our technological lead to keep the peace for us just as we used it to bring victory in the last world war. Our high standard of living with its many material comforts is at least in part, due to the tremendous strides made in scientific investigations. Through science, we are better able to nourish our bodies, till the soil, combat disease, and house and clothe ourselves. Through the application of scientific discoveries, we are saved much of the past manual labor of man. We can travel extensively, thanks to automobiles, boats, railroads & planes. We are able to find the time to amuse ourselves due to the shortened hours of the work week, and what is more, we have the energy to enjoy them due to decreasing physical effort required in our work day.

One natural result of all these benefits is that the average American tends to listen to the voice of science as to the voice of authority. This becomes noticeable when we consider a favored device of the advertiser on commercials that are part of many television programs. We have all come to look upon the white coat as signifying a doctor or scientist engaged in research, therefore when a man wearing a white coat appears on the television screen reporting the results of impartial testing we are to be convinced learned men of "science" are talking and the viewer goes out to the nearest store to buy the product. I imagine that the widespread use of this technique is an indication of the extent to which the average man bows down before the voice of science.

This development was probably what impelled Anthony Standen to write his rather well-known work, SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW, which urges caution in such bowing down before science. SCIENTIFIC METHOD The basic philosophy of science seems to be embodied in the concept of the scientific method. The philosopher Francis Bacon in his NOVUM ORGANUM described that at an early date in the following manner; "There remains a simple experiment which if taken as it comes, is called accident; if sought for, experiment.

The true method of experience first lights the candle and then by means of the candle shows the way, commencing as it does with the experience duly ordered and digested, not bungling nor erratic, and from it deducing axioms, from establishing axioms, again new experiments." Today the scientific method is considered to be composed of the following elements: First, recognition of a phenomenon that requires explanation; second, the mustering of all available data concerning the phenomenon; third, experimental observation, which usually requires quantitative measurements; fourth, the development of a hypothesis by inductive reasoning, this being the working basis for further ex-perimentaion. After sufficient experiments have been carried out to be statistically valid, the hypothesis may elevated to the status of a theory. Often a theory that withstands the test of time is called a law, which in the past was considered to be the ultimate or absolute finality. Of necessity, in recent years, the failure of a number of time-honored laws to hold has almost led to the abandonment of this concept of the absolute.

An interesting sidelight on scientific investigation is the shift in personnel that has taken place in the last hundred years. Today, we usually think of the scientist as being a professional worker, associated with a university, a hospital or commercial laboratory which, in turn, may either be associated with a specific industrial complex or freelance; or, he might be on the staff of a philanthropic research center such as the Rockefeller Foundation. This was not always the status of the scientist. In the past, the scientist was more often an amateur. If he had to be employed, science was his hobby. If he was independently wealthy, he could play at science full-time. This meant that in many cases the scientific advancement was carried on primarily by the nobility and the wealthy.

I doubt whether many are aware of the fact that Darwin studied theology, and his only earned degree was the B.D. His family was wealthy enough that he never worked for salary, and he could study and write at his leisure. This was also the case with Linnaeus, who could afford to travel over the whole of Europe. Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry, was a French politician who held many public offices prior to the French Revolution. Interestingly enough, he lost his head in that holocaust to the accompaniment of cries of "The republic needs no scientists." Loewenhoek, the father of microbiology, was a draper and the janitor of the Delft town hall. Cope and Marsh, noted vertebrate paleontologists of the 1870's and after, were independently wealthy and devoted themselves to fossil hunting as a full-time hobby.

Benjamin Franklin was a statesman, as was Thomas Jefferson, but Franklin had a profound interest in the field of applied physics, while Jefferson was involved in early American paleontology. In fact, he was responsible for the first American fossils arriving at French Museums. Hutton, famous in geology, was a doctor, as was Thomas Huxley the champion of Darwin. Malthus, who stated the Malthusian population principles, was a clergyman. Mendel, who laid the foundation for genetics, was an Austrian monk.

In Victorian days, many microscopic discoveries were made by amateurs. As I worked in a number of university museums in the fields of entomology and dendrology, I was often struck by the large numbers of collections that were made by amateurs. Also, a number of today's learned societies had their beginnings as amateur organizations.

I might close this section by pointing out that one finds frequent mention of the terms "pure" and "applied" science. Pure science implies scientific investigation proper, without any thought of financial return, but having as its aim simply the acquisition of additional knowledge of our environment. Industries that have research laboratories are also engaged in pure science, but the aim is always some process of product that will yield financial returns. Applied science is the term given to such professions as medicine, engineering, aeronautics and electronics. These professions utilize the findings of pure science. The university laboratories are more likely to be engaged in pure research, while the commercial laboratories are engaged primarily in applied research.

Over 1900 years ago, Pilate asked the question "What is truth?" Philosophers for many centuries before and after Pilate have been asking out of their uncertainty: "To what degree of certainty can we know any thing?" However, there have always been those who were dogmatic and, out of their own reasoning, knew the ultimate answer. In his day, Francis Bacon recognized the existence of two extremes in his NOVUM ORGANUM when he said, "There are those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood," and he also said, "There are those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course and asserted that absoutely nothing can be known." But he adds, "The more ancient of the Greeks whose writings have been lost, took up with better judgement a position between these two extremes— between the presumption of pronouncing on everything and the despair of comprehending anything."

Things haven't changed much through the centuries, since reading of late scientific literature represents all three positions. Unfortunately, many of those written on the elementary and popular levels hold more to the dogmatic, "everything's settled" approach. Unfortunate because it is at this level that young people first are acquainted with scientific literature and here that their ideas are first formed. A man of the stature of James B. Conant has written that he regards all scientific theories as highly provisional, 1 however, I do not feel that his statement is representative of the position expressed by popular science writers today. Of course, it is possible that I have been reading the wrong books and magazines.

One of the causes of the strife between science and Biblical theory is based on the philosophy that the methodology of science is sufficient in itself to solve all of man's problems and to answer all his questions. This is, however, stepping from science to scientism. Teaching this approach in effect establishes a rival religion, and in essence promotes atheism. A few examples of this attitude follow:

John Tyndall was a famous Irish physicist of the late 1800's In 1874, at Belfast, Ireland, as president of the British Association, he delivered a rather famous address where he stated that science alone was competent to deal with all of man's problems.

1  James B. Conant, SCIENCE AND COMMON SENSE. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1951. P. 28

(Continued in Next Issue)