The Bible and Science

The Bible and Science THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE
By W. L. OLIPHANT

There are no conflicts between the Bible and science. The teachings ,of the Bible are true, and only truth can be real science. Hence a conflict is not possible. All of the seeming discrepancies between science and Christianity may be accounted for by saying that where a dif- fel-ence appears it is due to either ignorance of science or ignorance of God’s word. Paul warned Timothy against “science, falsely so called”; and we might with equal propriety speak of “religion, falsely so called.” While I know that there are many religionists who are not informed on matters of science; and who by their efforts to discuss the subject, only widen the apparent breach between science and Christianity, yet the ignorance displayed in the controversy is far from being all on one side. Many scientists are woefully ignorant of God’s word. I venture the assertion that the average preacher knows more about science than the unbelieving scientist knows about Christianity. As an example of inexcusable ignorance of Christianity, witness the recent statements of the great scientist, Luther Burbank. Mr. Burbank is an authority on plant life, but he is no more an authority on matters of religion than the hum-blest preacher is an authority on the material sciences.

I have the greatest respect for science. Without the improvements which science has brought to us, the world would be most seriously handicapped. In fact, I do not believe that science is given its deserved consideration by the public mind. It is lamentable that our public press is so unbalanced in its recognition of worth and merit. A prize fight or a football game will be given whole columns in our papers; the account of a terrible crime will be spread across the front page in glaring headlines; while the scientist who discovers a specific cure for some terrible disease will be mentioned in a three inch, one column article over among the advertisements.

It is not our contention that the Bible is a text book on science. God did not give to man a discussion of the material sciences when he gave us his revelation, but where are incidentally made in the Bible about matters of science, such statements are absolutely true. Any theory which attempts to disprove any state-ment of God’s word is not science. Suppose the patients in a hospital should conspire together and attempt to drive all the nurses and physicians out; would you consider their actions wise? Would you think they were acting scientifically? Any theory which attempts to drive God from his universe by discrediting His word, instead of being real science. is a false gospel of Jesus Christ~God’s specific rule for humanity’s most hideous disease. No other physician offers a remedy. To disregard God’s word is to turn our backs upon the only remedy for the most blighting malady which has ever afflicted mankind.

Three Branches of Science Considered
The three branches of science probably most relied upon to discredit the revelation of Jehovah are Geology, Astronomy, and Anthropology. The Bible appeals to each of these sciences. First, let us briefly consider

#1-Geology
It is a fact worth noticing that the Bible, instead of fearing the test of Geology, actually appeals to this science. More than two thousand years ago, Job said, “Speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee-’ (Job 12:8). A conscientious'study of geology in connection with a prayerful study of the Bible should lead us to exclaim with Dhvid, “The earth is full of thy riches’’ (Psalms 104:24). Mr. F. H. Caprion has shown how the very first words of the Bible are in accord with the very latest conclusions of science. Mr. Herbert Spencer, who, al-though an agnostic who had no desire to establish the truth of the Scriptures, gave a scientific theory confirm-ing the Biblical record of creation. Speaking of the “manifestations of the unknown, he says that such a manifestation must, on a scientific basis, take these five distinct forms: Space, time, matter, motion, force.

We are told in the very beginning verses of the Bible that these manifestations really did occur, and almost in the precise order given by Mr. Spencer. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the wa-ters” (Genesis 1:1-2).

Notice the five specified forms suggested by Mr. Spencer:
“In the beginning" Time
“God created the heaven" Space
“and the earth" Matter
“and the Spirit of God" Force
“moved upon the face of the waters” Motion

Sir J. W. Dawson, a Canadian geologist, working from an entirely different standpoint from Mr. Spencer, gives us a similar outline which corresponds with the Genesis account of creation. Please bear in mind that the hook of Genesis was written thousands of years before it was possible to have known matters of this kind from the information of scientists. How do you account for this harmony save by admitting that the writer of Genesis simply stated facts as revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that scientists have only recently come to know these truths? Mr. Dawson, in his “Meeting Place of Geology and History,” says, “There can now be no doubt that the order of creation, as revealed to the author of Genesis, corresponds with the results of astronomical and geological research in a manner which cannot be accidental.” The same conclusion is reached by Professor Tristram in “Natural History,” .Mr. Pember, in “Earth’s Earliest Ages,” and many other geologists of note.

"We are sometimes told that the Bible does not agree with scientific conclusions as to the age of the earth, From an examination of the works of some twelve or fifteen of tfie best scientists, I have learned that their estimation as to the age of the earth varies from about 10,000 million years (the conjecture of Professor Ramsey in “Illustrations of Hnttonian Theory of the Earth”), down to about tern million years, as suggested by Professor Tate, in his “Recent Advances in Physical Science.” So we see that between the estimates of the scientists we have a slight discrepancy of about nine thousand nine hundred and ninety millions of years! When *1 am asked, “Does the Bible agree with science as to the age of the earth?” and this "forces me to reply by asking, “What science?” " The' Bible could not possibly agree with Professors Ramsey, GoodChlld, Dubois, Lyell, Croll, Tiiit Lodger Kelvin^. Sollas, et al, when these men of science afre milleniiirns apart" in their estimations" A: number of prominent scientists now aclmii that geology knows nothing as to the age of the earth. Besides, the Bible does not say when the earth was created, save, “In the beginning ...” We do not know when the earth was created except that upon that wonderful occasion, termed “in the beginning,” a wise, loving, eternal God “made the heaven and the earth.” The Nebula Hypothesis
Desiring to get away from the sublime idea that “God made the heaven and the earth,” man originated the Nebula Theory to account for the beginning of the earth on naturalistic grounds., This theory is a guess “that the earth and other planets have been slowly evolved through untold ages from cloudy vapour or masses of incandescent gas having a circular motion}, parts of which navigate the process of concentration, broken away from time to time and formed separate bodies. These, continuing to revolve in the same direction as the original mass, are supposed to have ultimately formed the earth and other planets as we know them” (Collett). When we remember that this theory has as its opponent the Book of God which has stood the test of investiga-tion, exanination, and criticism for more than nineteen centuries; a sufficient offset should be simply to say that the theory does not claim to be more than a guess, as the very term “hypothesis” proves. Ttlie theory is founded upon a series of assumptions so gigantic that they stagger the mind of man and stretch human credulity to the very breaking point. When the simple facts are known, it must be admitted that the theory is not only a mere guess, but a very poor guess at that.

Scientists are not at all agreed as to the essential facts (?) of the theory. Tyndall says that the earth began in a “fire mist” that contracted as it became cold; while Spencer says it was a “ cold cloud“ which became heated as it contracted. If we were confined to the two theories we could not know which to believe. Fortunately, however, we are not compelled to accept either; in fact we cannot do so, for the gases that we know anything about; do not act in either of those ways today. The theory cannot stand up in the face of the facts that some of the planets in our solar system, as, for example, our moon and the satellites of Saturn and Jupiter, revolve from west to east, while the moons of Uranus and Neptune revolve from east to west. If the planets as we know them developed from Booties thrown off from a parent mass moving in a circular motion, these planets would of necessity be moving in the same direction.

It is also now known that two of the principal planets —viz., Venus and Mercury have almost no rotation at till. Both of them move around the sun with the same side practically always toward that central object, in the same way that our moon moves around the earth. Mercury occupies 88 days in its orbit and Yenus 224 days in its orbit. Mercury only turns upon its axis four times a year, while Yenus is much slower, and takes seven or eight months to make one complete rotation. Would we not naturally suppose that if the planets were thrown off from a great mass of matter, revolving very rapidly, that these planets would move in this same direction and that they would move with something near the same speed? When you remember that not all the planets move in the same direction; and when you con-trast the rates of speed with which the various ones travel, for instance, Barth and Venus, you are com-pelled to reject the Nebula hypothesis as a very foolish conjecture and return to the Grand Old Book, and begin with God, “In the beginning.” Yet the entire framework of such popular books as Wells’ “Outlines of History” is built upon the Nebula theory.

Prof. George McCrehdy Price in his “New Geology,” and his “Fundamentals of Geology, conclusively proves that the old “Onion Coat” theory- as to the formation of the rocks is far from the truth, and that no uniformity of formation can be proven. He shows that the old theory relied upon by geology is based upon local formations and that it is foolish to attempt to give the theory a universal application. Mr. Price also proves that at some period in the past this old earth has passed through a terrible catastrophe. Many fossil elephants are found in the frozen regions of nothern Siberia. Many of these animals died suddenly, with undigested food in their stomachs, and even bits of tropical food in their mouths. Since we know that these animals could not have lived in an arctic climate, nor could their food have grown under such conditions, how are we to harmonize these facts with the old theories of geology which contend for a continual, unbroken chain of development? Would it not be much more reasonable to believe in God and remember that he has given us an account of just such a calamity as would be needed to produce the results we see, when he tells us that “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened” (Genesis 7:11). There is no conflict between true geology and God’s revelation in the Bible.

#2-Astronomy
Without the aid of the telescope, the sweet singer of Israel probably could not get the view of the starry dome encircling this earth with which we are now blessed.; but his view, limited as it was, caused him to break forth in that beautiful psalm of praise, “The heavens declare_the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork” IPs. 19:2). This sentiment should certainly be shared by the astronomer of today when, through the powerful telescope or spectroscope, he gazes into the blue heavens, into infinite space, beholding planets, suns and stars, as flying and burning worlds all traveling in their respective orbits around solar centers; When he realizes the immensity of space and observes the perfect system and harmony which characterizes these immense heavenly bodies. How can he fail to see, plan, and design in this most wonderful vision? How can he avoid seeing beyond and above it all an all-wise, all-knowing Creator whose hand guides each great planet in its course? Certainly, “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.”

Astronomers inform us that under the most favorable condition, the naked eye cannot see more than three thousand stars from a given point. However, by the aid of the telescope, as many as one hundred million stars may be discovered; and it is presumed that there are innumerable myriads which the most powerful telescope cannot bring within the scope of our vision. We might ask, in passing, ‘‘How did the writer of Hebrews know that the stars are innumerable?” (Hebrews 11:12). This was before the time of the powerful telescope.

Alpha Centauri, probably our nearest star, is estimated to be twenty-five trillion miles from the earth, 25,000,000,000,000 miles! Light travelling at the tremendous rate of 180,000 miles a second requires almost five years to reach us from this planet Pollux, the brightest one of the Twins is still farther away; we are only just receiving its light message sent in 1893. Castor, its twin brother in the sky, is much more remote, it is twenty years behind Pollux. Its light reaches us in a little more than fifty years. Astronomers know of stars so far from the earth that it takes more than a thousand years for their light to reach us. The figures of the mathematician fail to convey to our minds this almost endless distance. When we get a faint conception of the immensity of space and the innumerable host of planets moving about with almost perfect precision, each travelling within its own orbit; we cannot fail to realize the presence of the great Designer and Governor—God. We are made to exclaim: “When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the, stars which Thou hast ordained, what is manV’ (Psalms 8:3-4).

Light Before the Sun
The fact the Genesis says there was light on the first day of creation, while the sun did not appear until the fourth, has been considered a weapon for the disbeliever. Many pointed with the finger of ridicule to this seemingly unscientific, statement of Holy Writ. But we are now in harmony with Moses’ account. Science has discovered that the sun is not the only source of light; but that the earth and other planets may be self-luminous. The Nebula Hypothesis presumes the existence of light before the sun. If Moses had been speaking from human wisdom, would he have given us this order?
But why quibble about such matters? “God is light.” John describes a city which has “no need of the sun,” for God is its light. Mr. Sidney Collett suggests that there will again, after death, be a time when there will be light without the sun, but there will be no critics to cavil at it (“All About the Bible,” p. 274).

Light Not Created
The Genesis account does not tell us that God “cre-ated” light. We now know that light is the result of rapid vibrations in the form of waves in the ether. Hence light is not a substance and could not be created. God said,—literally, “Light be, and light was.” Instead of referring to light dwelling in a place, Job asked; ‘‘Where, is the way where light divelleJLhl” Light, involving motion, could not dwell in a place, but dwells in a way, travelling at the rate of 186,000 miles a second. If not by the inspiration of Jehovah, how did Job, in his day of limited scientific knowledge, know this marvelous scientific principle? An Earth Without Foundation
Ancient philosophers believed the earth rested upon some huge foundation, Ptolemy, Aristotle and Plato thought the earth to be a flat disc of land surrounded by a great world river, and that this disc formed the foundation for all other elements. These ideas pre-vailed in the very centers of learning until the sixteenth century. But Job knew, more than three thousand years ago, what we have now learned, that our globe is poised in space .Listen to the science of inspiration in Job's day: “He hangeth the earth upon nothing1' (Job 26:7). Will someone please account for the knowledge of this scientific principle at that early date, without God? The Bound Earth
I need not quote history to show you that men have not long known of the globular shape of the earth. Every school boy knows that such knowledge is of comparatively recent origin. But Jesus knew it (Luke 17:24-36). Christ tells us that his coming will occupy but an Instant, as the time of a lightning flash (verse 24). But in that instant there will be upon this earth, people sleeping—it will be night; others will be grinding at the mill—it will be early morning (reference is to the ancient custom of early morning grinding by the East-ern women); men will be laboring in the field—it will be broad daylight. And all this will be at one, and the same time. This can only be true because of the shape and movements of the earth. We now know that when darkness prevails on one side of the earth, the sun is shining upon the other side. Jesus knew this too; but scientists of his time had no such knowledge. But why argue the question? Inspiration declared the earth to be round long before the time of Christ. “He set a circle upon the face of the deep’’ (Proverbs 8:27). Isaiah is even clearer. He speaks of Him “who sitteth upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22).

Moffatt’s translation of this passage says that God “sits over the round earth.” Yes, Isaiah knew of the spherical form of the, earth, but he did not learn it from science. When science arrived at a knowledge of the truth, the “contradiction between science (?) and the Bible” on this point disappeared. The Empty Place of the North
Authorities at the Washington Observatory have discovered that there is a vast space in the northern heavens in which no star appears. In other words, there is a great “empty place” in the north. Men of science made this discovery by means of high-powered instruments, but Job had no such instruments. Yet he knew this fact. Hear him “He [God] stretcheth out the north over the empty place” (Job 26:7). Again we see perfect science and the Inspiration of long ago.

Joshua’s Long Day
The Biblical record of Joshua’s long day has afforded the infidel much solace. It is argued that since Joshua is quoted as having said, “Sun, stand thou still,” he did not know that the movements of the earth, not the sun, cause day and night. A scientist would have no hesitancy in saying, “I saw a beautiful sunrise this morning.” But in reality, he saw no such thing! What he really saw was an “earth roll.” No one would think of questioning the scientist’s knowledge because of his use of this unscientific expression. What would the reader of that day have known about the matter, if scientific terms had been used in an effort to express exactly what happened? A better rendition of Joshua’s language, is, as suggested in the margin, “Sun be silent,” or “be inactive.” Scientists understand that a diminution of the action of the sun would cause the rotation of the earth to become slower.

Believing in a Govi who could, and did, create the sun and all other planets, it is not difficult for me to accept this unusual occurrence as a miraculous act of His powerful hand. And especially since the calculations of astronomy leave a place for just such a long day as is described in the Bible. Professor Totten, basing his conclusions upon an elaborate mathematical calculation, tells us that it is impossible to avoid the acceptance of both Joshua’s long day and the backward travel of the shadow pn the dial of Ahaz Kings 20:11). After a long astronomical calculation, he says that this fact “affords the key to the entire Hebrew soli-lunar calendrie system .... and squares itself with every date of the Bible down to the birthday of Heber” (“Our Race”).
Joshua’s long day is not only an astronomical fact, but is an historical one as well. Including the Biblical record as to Palestine, we know of five countries having a record of a long day, viz: Greece, Egypt, Mexico, China, and Palestine.

Time forbids my mentioning many other matters of astronomy which offer proof of the inspiration of the Bible. There are no contradictions between the Bible and a completed astronomy.

#3-Anthropology
“What is man?” (Psalms 8:4). This question, asked by David, is always an interesting one. Man’s body, with its more than two hundred hones, five hundred muscles, a thousand ligaments, ten thousand nerves, an equal number of arteries and veins and a hundred thousand glands; covered with a skin containing two hundred million pores, is certainly capable of arousing considerable interest. God says to this body, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:19). Dr. A. T. Pierson has shown in his book, “God’s Living Oracles,” that at least fourteen elements of the human body— such as oxygen, hydrogen, sodium, phosphorus, magnesium, carbon, and silicon—are identical with the “dust.” Later methods which are more sensitive than chemical analysis, which is referred to by Dr. Pierson, demonstrate that practically every element of man’s body is also an element of the dust.” And we all know that the disintegration of the human body results in a “returning to the dust.” But man is more than a physical body. He is an in-tellectual being. The mind of man so far supersedes that of any beast as to present an unbridgeable chasm between them. In the beginning, God gave man “dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over everything that m.oveth on the face of the earth.” This dominion man has maintained to a remarkable degree. God gave to man the tremendous task of “subduing” the earth (Genesis 1:28). This has also been accomplished wonderfully. The mountains, the rivers, the forests, and even the elements of the air have become the ser vants of man.

Man is also more than body and intellect. Man has a conscience, a higher nature than that given by mind and matter—a soul. This is true of no other creature in the world. This gives to man a field which he alone occupies. No scientific theory advanced by man can account for the faculties of man and eliminate God. Wallace quotes Huxley as saying, “One thing which weighs with me against pessimism, and tells for a benevolent Author of the universe, is my enjoyment of scenery and music. I do not see how they can have helped in the struggle for existence. They are gratuitous gifts” (Wallace, “Darwinism,” p. 478). While himself adhering to “continuity of physical and mental development,” Wallace admits that at “three distinct stages of progress from the inorganic world of matter and motion up to man, some new cause of power must necessarily have come into action” (Wallace, “Darwinism,” pp. 474-478). On the other hand, Professor Ernest Haeckel says that the best definition of evolution is the “n on-miraculous origin and progress of the universe.” He declares that if the Creator is admitted at any one point, He may as well be admitted all along the line. Scientists who hold that man is a product of evolution are unable to agree upbn the essentia] details. Dr. William E. Hitter, member of the advisory board of the Science League of America, says, “If one scans a hit thoughtfully the landscape of human life for the last few decades, he can hardly fail to see signs that the whole battle ground of evolution will have to be fought over again; this time not so much between scientists and theologians as among scientists themselves” (“Science,” April 14, 1922). Evolution must always remain no more than a theory (See “The Direction of Human Evolution,” by Professor Conklin, of Princeton). It is a matter of faith with the scientists accepting it. Dr. Ritter closes his article re-ferring to above with this exhortation: “fjet us bestow much more time and energy upon the grounds of our faith in evolution as one of nature’s grandest processes, than upon searching after, and speculating about, the causes of evolution.”

Dr. D. H. Scot, after summing up the present difficul-ties of the evolutionary theory, exclaims: “Yet evolu-tion remains—wc cannot get away from it, even if we hold it only as an act of faith” (Nature, September 29, 1921). If then, evolution has been reduced to a matter of faith, why all the criticism of the believer in the Biblical account, of creation' Is it not more “scientific’1 to accept as a “matter of faith,” God as the supreme cause of life in all its forms than to attribute these inexplainable phenomena to blind chance. It has been estimated, for example, that if the twenty-six letters of the alphabet, were thrown promiscuously about by chance force, they would probably fall together in the present order—A, B, C, etc., once in five hundred million, million, million times that they were thus tossed up and allowed to fall by chance. Why then, would chance give us such a systematic universe at the very first “fall”?

Professor Edward Clodd, an evolutionist of recognized standing, says, “The absence of facts forces us to confine ourselves largely to suggestions and probabilities” .(“Making of a Man,” p. 188). Professor Henry Pair- field Osborn, who is at the head of the American Museum , of Natural History, says, “The mode of the origin of life is a matter of pure speculation” (“The Origin and Evolution of Life,” p. 67). We do not wonder that Darwin. in his works, used such terms as “ it may he supposed,” etc,, more than eight hundred times. The theory of evolution begins with a supposition (“pure speculation”), and then builds supposition after supposition upon this foundation. This is in violation of the rules of evidence, one of which is that “one presumption of facts cannot be based upon another” (16 Corpus Juris 765).

Allow me to examine briefly the fossil specimens presented by evolutionists as the “missing links” in the development of man from lower forms of life.

“PITHECANTHROPUS"’
(Java Apeman)
This overwhelming name has been given to the man reconstructed on the basis of some bones supposed to have been found by Dr. Eugene Dubois in the Island of Java in 1891. Of this man only a skull cap, two teeth and a past of a femur Bone were discovered. These fragments were found scattered through twenty yards of space in a gravel pit on the bank of a rushing stream. Not all the bones were discovered at the same time. Scientists are not agreed on these fragments of evidence The geologist, Dana, took the position that if these hones all belonged to the same individual they belonged to a low-grade man or to an idiot. They were rejected by Professor Klaatsch of Heidelberg University, Dr. Lull, Professor Virchow, and many other scientists. In' fact if you will read the Encyclopedia Brittannica (1922 edition), Volume 30, page 145, you will find there ip one short paragraph three different opinions of three famous men regarding this creature Dr. John Roach Straton quotes Dr. William Gregory, of Columbia University, as saying that scientists estimate the age of the Java fossil at 500,000 years. Can a thoughtful man believe that, in spite of earthquakes, fire, and flood; these bones assumed to have belonged to one individual, would have remained undisturbed beside what is now a rushing stream, for a period of 500,000 years ? The Heidelberg Man
How much of this creature was really found as a fossil? Only one jawbone! Some have made a great sport of the Biblical account of woman being made of a rib, and now, behold scientists have constructed a whole man out of a jawbone! Lull says of this fragment: “The teeth are regularly placed and the canines are not in any way bestial in their development, less so, indeed, than in some modern men.” The Piltdown Man
Of this creature, two or three bits of skulLhane, a piece of jawbone, and a canine tooth L were found in Sussex, England, near Piltdown Common. Dr. Henry P. Osborne admitted in 1918 that it had “not yet been shown that the Piltdown jaw belongs with the Piltdown skull” (“men of the Old Stone Age,” p. 14). The Neanderthal Man
Of this type several bits of remains have been found at various times. This specimen has provoked from competent authorities more than a dozen opinions con-cerning itself. The remains; indicate a creature with a
cranial capacity considerably larger than that of the average modern man. Dr. Thomas D. Parkman, professor of anatomy ia Harvard University, says, “The Neanderthal man is not a specimen of a race arrested in its upward climb, but rather a race thrown..down from a still higher position. The Cro-Magnon Man
This species is truly Homo-sapien of the highest type, comparing most favorably with modern man in every way. The Talgai Specimen
The Talgai skull is still shown as an evidence of evo-lution, but very little is now said about it. Mr. Archibald Mestou, of Australia, former chief protector of Aborigines, has shown that it is the skull of an Australian hoy who was shot and buried in 1848.

Sir J. W. Dawson contends that the earliest known remains of man are those found at Gibralter, Belgium, and Clichy, France, etc., and that these men exhibit great superiority of brain power, intelligence, taste and skill; extreme longevity of life; great stature, and great muscular power, with indications of violence and bru-tality. All of these characteristics correspond with the Scripture records of ancient man (Read Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5; Genesis 6:4; Genesis 6:5-11). If there is any identification to be gained from these fossil remains, it seems that it would tend to show the devolution of man from that, “upright” state in which God created him. The authority just referred to (Dawson), says the earliest relatives of man show “that man’s earliest state was his best.’’ In fact, we have on every hand, instead of evidence of evolution, evidence of just the opposite—degeneration. Man may, within a given specie, develop a much Befler variety than he begins with; but so soon as the hand of man is removed, a process of degeneration begins, and a reversion back to the original is the result. This is true of both plants and animals.

Resemblances in Structure
It will hardly be denied that there are resemblances between the body of the beast and the body of man. But would we not expect some points of similarity between the various products of the same God? The very fact that all forms of animals have to breathe air and live on the same sort of food largely, necessitates more or Less similarity between them. I see in these resemblances, not proof that the one is a development of the other, but that both matt and beast were made by the same Creator.

Vestigial Organs
Evolutionists have thought to prove their theory by the existence of certain organs in man’s body, for which they could see no use. It has been argued that these organs are relics of man in a lower form. Among these we note the pineal gland, the thyroid glands, the thymus, the pituitary body, etc. But physicians have come to know that these little, seemingly uesless organs, perform, valuable functions in the work of the body. Why argue that a part of my body is useless, and must be the remains of an organ belonging to a beast, simply because I do not t know its functions? But why continue further? No man-made theory can account for the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the_jmigia-.o£ the soul, or the natural longing of the human soul, la live after the death of the icily. Man naturally desires food. God provides food. Man naturally desires water, provision has been made for the satisfaction of this desire. Man naturally desires an eternal life; and it is but reasonable to suppose that that desire will also be given consideration by Him “who doeth all things well."

God’s word offers to us our only hope of an eternal salvation. The science which deals with the soul’s eternal welfare is of more lasting worth than any of the material sciences. So in the final analysis, the gospel preacher who “handles aright the word of truth,” is a real scientist. He deals with an everlasting science. His science is unchangeable. Other sciences change. The science of today is tomorrow relegated to the background, and declared untrue. We need not expect the Bible to agree with every so-called scientific theory. We know that many of the theories of the past are untrue; perhaps many of those offered today will be rejected tomorrow. But I make this statement without fear of successful contradiction: The Bible contradicts no principle of science which has been demonstrated to be a fact.

If you possess a piece of property, having a title which has stood the test of litigation for more than 1900 years, you are quite sure that your title is good. Oi.. “title to mansions in the sky,” is more than 1900 years old, has been subjected to every kind of test known to men or demons: Still it stands! Shall we now discard it because it fails to harmonize with some theory which is not, and cannot ever be, a demonstrated fact? Especially when it is the only possible title to a home for the soul? Two boys, students in school near Lake Michigan, were among those called one dark, stormy night, to assist in rescuing the passengers from a ship wrecked in Lake Michigan. These boys were expert swimmers. Both worked in earnest for a while. Finally one of them said, ‘‘I cannot risk my own life. I have carried several people to safely. I am not going after another.” The other boy had a greater love for his fellow-man. Back into the surging waters he went, and again and again, until he had saved seventeen lives. In his effort to rescue the eighteenth, he succumbed. He was carried to his home and placed in bed. He lay there several days in a state of semi-consciousness. All this time he kept saying over and over: “Did I do my best? Could I not have saved one more?” Do you admire this young man for his interest in others, for his estimate of the worth of a human life, and for his undying vision of the needs of others? I am sure you do; hut remember, young preacher, his efforts were for the salvation of the body, which must some day die. You have a life-belt to carry to souls, sinking in the great sea of immorality, degradation and sin! Hold fast to your interest in the souls of men, to your estimate of the worth of a never-dying soul, and to your vision of the spiritual needs of humanity. Do not allow any unproved theory to drag your anchor loose from the immovable Rock of Ages. In the words of Mr. Bryan: “It is better to trust irj the Rock of Ages than in the age of the rocks." In 1922 I conducted a protracted meeting in Drumright, Oklahoma. During this meeting 113 souls were added to the church. Great crowds were in attendance at each service. Among the many curiosity-seelcers was an old infidel. I often talked with him. Once I asked him for his idea of heaven and a future life. He replied : “I have a good home here. I like it. I have no desire to go to heaven.” I later moved to this town and came to know the old man better. He became seriously ill. The doctor informed him that he could not live but a short time. He called for me. I went to his bedside. As we talked, I could not get my mind away from his remark about heaven. Finally I said, “I do not want to appear to be antagonistic to you at this time. It is too late to argue the matter now, but may I ask if you remember your saying to me that you were satisfied with your home here and had no desire to go to l.eaven? And may I ask, What is your attitude now?” He was silent for some time, but finally answered me, slowly and deliberately, and this was his answer: “I cannot stay here any longer. The question with me now is, Where can I go when I must leave this home ? I have made no preparation for another,” Do not give up that eternal science which deals with the preparation for an eternal home. Do not be misled by “science, falsely so called.” There is no antagonism between the Bible and a completed science. Science must advance by climbing upon the dead ruins of discarded theories. Day by day she comes nearer to all truth. And when, if ever, science learns all about God’s great book of nature, every honest scientist will become a Christian, and upon the title page of the texts of science may be written the words: “In the Beginning, God.”