VII. THEORIES OF SCIENTISTS AND UNBELIEF

CHAPTER VII THEORIES OF SCIENTISTS AND UNBELIEF

It is essential to remember that there is often a vast difference between the facts in the hands of a scientist and the theories by which he explains these facts. All of the theories of a scientist are not scientific, in that all of their theories are not proved and some of them are of such a nature that they cannot be proved; while some of them are absolutely contrary to evidence. There are also theories, held by some scientists, which are not essential in the interpretation and manipulation of materials. Just because they are held by scientists does not mean that they are scientific. The author does not in any way deprecate the contributions which have been made by scientists; and neither does he discourage scientific investigation. Scientists, however, are human and are subject to passions and prejudices like the rest of us mortals. Some of them, of course, have disciplined themselves better than have others.

Four of the unwarranted theories of some scientists will be discussed in this book. Two have been the stumbling block in the path of faith for multitudes of people. They have been the cause of and justification for unbelief in a measure that no other theories have been in our generation. These theories are first the dogma of uniformitarianism and second the creed called evolution. Not everything that can be said against these theories will be said in this chapter. Enough, however, will be said to show that they are unproved theories and that they have been the main-stay of unbelief in our generation. At a later date it is the author's intention to issue at least two volumes on these theories. One of them will be on The Uniformitarian Dogma, and the other will deal with some of the main arguments for the theory of organic evolution. However, as pointed out in this chapter, these two theories are closely related to one another, and the above dogma is one of the supports for the dogma of evolution. Third, size as the main standard of measurement is adopted by some scientists; but only because, as we shall show, they do not think. Fourth, that the Bible is anti-scientific. Let us now turn our attention to the uniformitarian dogma.

A. THE UNIFORMITARIAN DOGMA

The tidal wave of unbelief, which is sweeping over the country today, by its very size leads some to have doubts concerning the Christian faith. And yet, the number of people who do not believe in the gospel is no argument against the truth of the gospel. That is, unless one wishes to hold to the obviously unsound position that truth is determined simply by the vote of the majority. It is also true that the number of unbelievers does not mean that there are a mulitude of good reasons why they should be unbelievers. The fact of the matter is that much of the unbelief today is due to the acceptance of a theory known variously as uniformity, uniformitarianism, or continuity. Once it is accepted in its extreme form, revelation and inspiration are rejected as a matter of course and without investigation. These are contrary to uniformitarianism and therefore they cannot be true, is the attitude of a multitude of unbelievers. Their anti-supernatural bias makes impossible, as long as tenaciously clung to, any fair consideration of the evidence for supernatural revelation.

I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DOGMA

As geologists surveyed the remains of tremendous upheavals which had taken place in the earth they maintained that some causes or forces must have operated in times past, to produce these changes, which are not now operating. Around 1785 however, James Hutton, in his Theory of the Earth, advanced the theory that the causes which operated in times past to produce these changes are the same causes which now operate on the earth. The present, he argued, is the key to the past and if we want to know the causes which produced the tremendous changes in the earth we need only examine those causes which are now producing changes. Hutton's theory was given world-wide influence through the work of Charles Lyell. Today this theory is, with some slight modifications, accepted as one of the funda mental principles of geology.

II. THE INFLUENCE OF THE THEORY

The theory has had an influence both on the doctorine of evolution and on the world's attitude toward the supernatural. T. H. Huxley, an agnostic evolutionist, maintained that Lyell and his theory were the chief agents in smoothening the road for Darwin. For evolution is simply an extension to the biological world, the world of living things, of the principle of uniformity which Hutton and Lyell applied to the physical world. All living creatures, including man were produced by the laws which we now see operating and not by a creation by God which is different from anything now taking place.

This doctrine led to the denial of miracles. Miracles claim to be something unique, something distinct from that which is produced by the ordinary workings of the laws of nature which now work around us. As Rogers, Hubble, and Byer put it--in their textbook which is used in some state universities--"miracles do not occur." They admit, however, on the same page that uniformity is one of those assumptions which can not be proved to have always operated. And it is on the basis of just this assumption that so many people reject the Bible, and all the evidence for the supernatural intervention of the Divine into the so-called natural course of things. It is the core--under the name of continuity--of the philosophy of John Dewey which denies the divine and supernatural and makes man one end of a long line, of which matter is the other end. His adherence to this doctrine, and his influence on educational thought in this country, is brought out by the present writer in his dissertation on A History of Pragmatism in American Educational Thought.

It is such an accepted theory in scientific thought that one English author stated that the evidence which seemed to point to a creation of the universe, suddenly at some time past, could not be accepted because it would violate the doctrine of continuity. "No explanation could be accepted as scientific which involved such a breach of continuity."

To the present author it has seemed that science ought to fit facts instead of crucifying facts in order to make them fit a theory, but such is the popularity of the theory that multitudes of scientists go wrong, in so far as accepting evidence for the supernatural is concerned, because of their blind adherence to this theory.

These uniformitarians would certainly be the best of lawabiding citizens if they adhered as strictly and rigidly to the laws of the land as they do to the law of uniformity which they have unwarrantedly extended to embrace creation and all of life. One wonders who passed this law. What legislative body formulated it and decreed that at no time in the past, and at no time in the future, could there be any violation of this law! Where did they get the power to enforce it and to make it retroactive as well as law for all ages and events to come! How did it become such a crime to maintain that there is any exception to this law? No, gentlemen, such strict adherence to uniformity is itself illegal for it ignores evidence.

III. THE CHRISTIAN'S POSITION

The Christian affirms, of course, that there are laws operating in the universe. He realizes that there is uniformity. He does not put biscuits in the oven one day and expect them to become warm, and put them in the next day, under the same conditions, and expect them to freeze. He maintains, however, that uniformity does not extend to the extreme position that denies creation, and the miracles recorded in the Bible. The fact that God has expressed himself in natural laws does not mean that He could not otherwise express Himself and exercise His will in bringing to pass events which would not have come to pass through the ordinary expressions of his will in what we call laws of nature. God has intervened, as the evidence shows, in creation, in the History of Israel, in the Incarnation, in Redemption, and in the other things connected therewith.

IV. THE MIRACULOUS Is NOT IMPOSSIBLE

Let the scientist allow Christians the same freedom that he claims for himself, the freedom to make basic assumptions. He admits that the doctrine of continuity is an assumption which cannot be demonstrated to be all-embracing. Let us assume that God is. We are convinced, of course, that in many ways this belief may be tested, and that the evidence for it is overwhelming when fairly considered. The overwhelming majority of mankind, including most evolutionists, accept this as a reasonable assumption and they believe that God is. Since God is, then certainly His mind and will can act on matter and on humanity. For since man can exercise his mind and will and bring to pass events, cause them, which would not come to pass if man did not exercise his will; then God certainly can do the same since He is immeasurably greater than man. Where He intervened, and made it known to man, that intervention would involve the miraculous and be revealed to man as such.

F. Bettex, well said: "Why not look upon a miracle as that which it professes to be, as that apart from which it would be no miracle--as something happening outside the limits of the known laws of nature, be it an occurrence in obedience to higher laws, be it an arbitrary and supernatural intervention of God. From this simple position with regard to a miracle . . . two things follow: First, the absurdity of denying it. To maintain that no miracle has ever taken place, that such a thing is impossible, is nothing else than to maintain we know all the forces and laws and possibilities in the universe! For four thousand years we have noted and investigated so thoroughly every single fact in the life of the individual and of the nation, every phenomenon of nature and the universe in general, that we are able to determine what is possible and what impossible. During this brief span of time we have been able to draw certain and infallible conclusions as to all that has happened and ever will happen . . ."

"The second result that follows from the above definition of a miracle is the impossibility of scientifically disputing it. A miracle is altogether outside the province of scientific criticism (which deals with that which can be repeated when the physical causes are right. No one maintains that miracles are repeatable or that they were produced simply by bringing together certain physical conditions, J. D. B.) . This was acknowledged by the great scientist, Tyndall, who was by no means a believer in the Bible, yet admitted that if there is a God he is almighty, and can therefore work miracles; and that miracles, if there is such a thing, have nothing to do with science, but lie outside her province. Quite true, we say, and would recommend this utterance of a man of the first rank to those of tenth rank who delight in confronting miracles with science . . . °

The only question, then, which one raises with reference to miracles, is not whether or not it is in harmony with the dogma of uniformity. The question is: Is there evidence that God has miraculously intervened into the affairs of mankind?

That He has done so in the Bible is shown by the evidence which proves that the Bible is from God. We commend Olinthus Gregory, Christian Evidence, for proof of the point, which some have denied, that the strength of the testimony to the miracles of Christ is no more weakened by the passage of time than is the strength of the testimony to the existence of Nero.

V. THE DOGMA MAY BE TURNED AGAINST THE EVOLUTIONIST WHO DENIES SUPERNATURAL INTERVENTION

If the dogma of uniformity is strictly adhered to evolution itself would be strictly impossible. For unless it can be shown today that life is being originated from non-living matter, then one must conclude that life never came from non-life and that evolution could not have taken place. First, evolutionists admit that the spontaneous generation of life from non-life has never been proved and that all the proof is to the effect that this doctrine is not true. Since it is not true now, the uniformitarian must say that it has never been true. Therefore, evolution itself could not get started without a miracle, without an exception to uniformity; for something must have operated in the past to produce life which is not now operating to produce life. Second, in harmony with this evolutionists admit that life comes only from life. They also admit that life has not always existed on the earth.8It follows, therefore, that some Supernatural Power, which had life, placed life on this earth for man could hardly come here in a rocketship. And even if he had, that would not solve the origin of life, but simply place the problem on another planet, and one would have the same problem as to how life originated there. Third, there is no proof that invertebrates are evolving into vertebrates for example. Since the present is the key to the past, so says the uniformitarian, it is evident that such never took place. It is clear that the evolutionist himself must violate the dogma of uniformity to even get a workable theory of evolution.

VI. THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF UNIFORMITY

The fundamental error of the dogma of uniformity, particularly as applied to the theory of organic evolution "is simply this," as the Duke of Argyll pointed out years ago "that all the theories of development ascribe to known causes unknown effects."

VII. THE THEORY UPSET BY THE OPERATION OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE

It is a fact that human life and intelligence did not always exist on this earth. Even atheistic scientists, and most scientists are not atheists, admit that conditions on earth were once such as to make human life impossible. And yet, human intelligence today operates as a cause. He who denies this is blind and labels himself as unintelligent and as a mere thing which is acted upon by external forces, but who himself causes nothing. He is blind for if there is any fact it is that human intelligence can so manipulate things that results are brought into being which would not otherwise have appeared. The laws of nature, without human intelligence, would not have produced a Model-T, much less a Lincoln. And every book which is written to prove that man is without any freedom, and that intelligence cannot cause things, is itself a refutation of the author's position. For the author purposed such a book, and produced it. It would have never been purposed or produced by the laws of nature operating in matter apart from human intelligence. And, as we have said, he also labels himself as unintelligent and a mere thing, for he denies that he is an intelligent cause of anything and that all things done through him are done just as if the term intelligence, and what it stands for, had never been. But every moment of our lives we see evidence of human intelligence operating as a cause.

Since human intelligence did not always exist, it must be admitted that there is now operating a cause which did not always operate in all times past. And what is said of intelligence, may also be said of life itself. Life producing life is a cause which has not always operated on this globe.

Since there is this much breach of the dogma of continuity it is difficult to see why one should blindly adhere to it and let it prejudice his mind against the evidence for the supernatural origin of the Bible.

VIII. THE BIBLE DESTROYS THE DOGMA

The Bible can be shown to be the work of a superhuman mind, and since it clearly teaches that miracles have taken place it proves that the dogma of uniformity cannot be true. This is true not only with reference to the Bible in general, but with reference to Jesus Christ in particular. It breaks down when one tries to apply it to Christ. As C. A. Row has shown, "Jesus Christ (is) not the result of the action of those forces which energise in the production of man, but (is) a manifestation of a superhuman power."

IX. THE BIBLE PREDICTED THE UNIFORMITARIAN DOGMA AND THE DENIAL OF THE MIRACULOUS WHICH IS BASED ON IT

It doubtless comes as a surprise to the unbeliever that the New Testament predicted just such a dogma and just such a denial of miracles on the basis of the dogma. It should at least begin to shake their confidence in their extreme position. For how did the writer of one of the books of the New Testament know that such a condition would one day exist. Especially when even most unbelievers--for example, Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy where he discusses, in connection with Christianity, Gibbon's five "causes" for the spread of Christianity--admit that in the first century the people believed that there were supernatural interventions.

Centuries ago Peter wrote to Christians as follows: "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; that ye may stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance; that ye may be mindful of the commandment of us the apostles by the Lord and Saviour: knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?" We pause here to observe that the Christians would be teaching, of course, that Jesus Christ was coming again to bring salvation to the righteous and to recompense tribulation to the wicked (Hebrews 9:27-28; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-11) .

This teaching would be based on supernaturalism for if Christ is coming again it means that He is more than man. For who is expecting that in the natural course of things a man who died two thousand years ago is coming again? If He is coming again He is right with reference to what He taught for He taught that He would come again. And His coming again is based on the fact that His first coming was supernatural; that death did not hold Him; that after His resurrection He ascended to heaven; and there He is to remain until the time for His second advent. All this, we say, is based on supernaturalism and constitutes a denial that things have always continued as they are now operating. It also constitutes a denial that things will always continue in the future as they are now. For since Christ's first advent was accompanied by supernatural manifestations something took place then that is not taking place now; and when He comes again forces will operate of which the present natural laws know nothing. But scoffers are denying His coming, and Peter said that in their mockery they would ask: Where is the promise of His coming?

On what do they base their mockery and their scoffing question? Peter states the basis for their mockery in the same verse. "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (2 Peter 3:1-4) Peter continues and teaches, among other things, that they have ignored the evidence for the flood; that the fact that Christ has not yet come is not a sign that He will not come, but is simply a manifestation of the grace of God which gives men additional time in which to repent; and that Christ will come again and that the earth will be destroyed by fire.

The thing, however, with which we are concerned is the reason on which they are basing their denial of His second advent. They deny it because they maintain that things are now as they have always been. "All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation," this is their reason. "There is no mistake about this rendering. The Greek word arche, meaning 'beginning' is there used: so that Creation itself is clearly meant to be involved in the continuity of present-day process."11 H. E. Dana, and Julius R. Mantey, state that the tense of "continue" indicates that perpetuity is implied by it. In commenting on the "static present tense" in Greek, they wrote: "the present tense may be used to represent a condition which is assumed as perpetually existing, or to be ever taken for granted as a fact." One of the references which they give to illustrate this is 2 Peter 3:4, "While this use is rare, it is nevertheless fully significant of the genius of the tense. The idea of progress in a verb of being. This " being.use is practically the present of duration applied to a verb of being."

These scoffers maintain that there has been no supernatural intervention in times past because they assume that the only processes which have ever worked are those which now work. Such miracles are not being wrought now. Thus they were never wrought! There will be no supernatural manifestations in the future for the processes which now work will continue to work for all time to come. They thus extend their doctrine back to include creation itself and forward to include all future events. "Their doctrine of 'creation,' therefore, is one which dispenses with God's interventions, and appeals to present-day processes alone, as being perfectly sufficient of themselves to explain the origin and development of everything in nature. In other words, their doctrine is identical with the doctrine of evolutionists." "See, too, how these people are represented as making their statements with the greatest assurance They do not say that all things continue as 'they are held to have continued, from the beginning of creation, but that they continue 'as from' that beginning. They admit of no doubt upon the matter. Although they extend Uniformity back to the very beginning of creation, and thus flatly contradict Genesis, they speak as though they were quoting 'clear and demonstrative knowledge.' Thus an illegitimate extension of Uniformity is given out, by these men, as the purest science." It reaches back through the time of Christ and even embraces creation itself, and thus denies all the supernatural manifestations set forth in the Bible. And, of courses if there was nothing supernatural about Christ's first coming, He was not what He claimed to be and thus He will not be coming again.

So sure of this doctrine of continuity are these modern deniers of the supernatural that Edward Clodd wrote: "Evolution knows only one heresy--the denial of continuity." "Nothing else matters to the evolutionists. Once you grant the fundamental dogma of continuity, all modern apostasy will follow inevitably from it, exactly as declared in Scripture eighteen centuries ago."

It is well to call to the reader's attention the fact that the King James translation, which clearly states this doctrine of continuity, was made in 1611, long before James Hutton, Lyell, and others popularized the doctrine of continuity. "Although no hint of the modern dogma of Continuity had then appeared; our translators--with nothing but the inspired Text to guide them --produced the perfect anticipation of modernist unbelief, actually employing the very word 'continue,' which so peculiarly characterises it today."

By this time it should be clear to the reader that the tidal wave of unbelief, which has swept some portions of the religious and scientfic world, goes back to this doctrine of continuty. It is this anti-supernatural bias, and not any lack of evidence for the Bible, which has led multitudes to renounce the Bible and to explain it away. It is its supernatural claims which immediately discredit it in their minds for their bias leads them to deny, even without examination, all evidence for revelation. Let us not be unsettled by this vain bit of philosophy of man, but remain steadfast on the rock of the evidence for the Lord Jesus Christ.

B. THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION

The theory of organic evolution has been seized on by unbelievers to justify their unbelief. Evolution, not God, they maintain, is the cause of the plants and of all living things. It is true that those who deny the existence of God must fall back on some form of the theory of evolution in order to explain things. It is not true, however, that evolution actually explains things for in the first place evolution cannot be proved--the facts do not support it; and in the second place even evolution does not necessarily deny God for it could be maintained that such was the mode of divine creation; and futhermore, evolution does not tell you the cause of evolution; i. e. that which produced the changes.

Nevertheless, it is true that the desire to get away from the idea of God has made the theory of evolution very acceptable to many unbelievers. As Morton wrote: "To get away from the supernatural and display the needlessness of God has undoubtedly been one of the impulses which has driven mankind so largely along the evolutionary paths of thought. Prof. H. F. Osborn, one of the very protagonists of Evolution today (though he admits that 'the old paths of research have led nowhere') , says frankly, 'from the period of the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of Evolution and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the course of nature': and when he himself speaks of Law directing Evolution he only means some principle contained in organisms, an evolution by resident forces, and says: We may first exclude the possibility that it acts either through supernatural or teleological interposition through an external creative power' (p. 10). Like most of the ancient Greek evolutionists he believes in some sort of spontaneous generation of life. All thinkers have to reckon with this strange bent of the human mind to convince itself of the needlesness of God."

A complete, detailed refutation of the theory of evolution is not contemplated in the following paragraphs. This is being reserved for other works; but enough will be said in order to show some of the difficulties which evolutionists have not and cannot overcome. They are not difficulties which merely embarrass the theory, but which demolish it.

I. THE THEORY HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED

At some place or other in almost any book on evolution the writer will admit that the theory of evolution has not been demonstrated; although in the rest of the book he may write as if it is firmly established. and that only the ignorant, or the prejudiced reject it. This author has in his notes a number of statements from evolutionists who admit that it is simply a faith with them and in some cases they admit that they believe that the theory must be true because to them the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

II. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

No one has been able to produce a living organism out of inorganic matter. All efforts to estabish the doctrine of spontaneous generation have failed; and evolutionists will admit that all life today comes from life. Thus evolution breaks down before it gets started.

III. THE FACT OF MUTATIONS

While it is true that man has been able to produce different varieties of wheat; better breeds of milk cows; and variations in such insects such at the fruitfly; these facts do not prove the theory of evolution. In the first place these experiments start with living things. Second, these do not prove what has happened in the past; especially they fail to prove a theory which does not start with life, but with matter. Third, these mutations are not at all the transmutations which would be necessary in order to establish the dogma of evolution.

IV. THE UNBRIDLED GAPS

The theory calls for impossible transformations to bridge the numerous gaps between the lowest forms of living things and the highest forms. It is not just a question of the missing link, but of innumerable missing links. Neither the fossils in the rocks nor the living creatures on earth fill these gigantic gaps, such as the gap between invertebrates and the vertebrates.

V. THE FALLACY OF HASTY GENERALIZATION

The evolutionists are guilty of the fallacy of a hasty generalization. They generalize and draw sweeping conclusions which are not at all justified by the facts. To generalize and conclude, because there is variation within species, that the theory of organic evolution--which embraces the development from nonlife to life, and then gradually to the highest forms of life, by forces resident within matter--is an excellent illustration of a crude, hasty generalization. Nothing in the facts warrant such a sweeping conclusion.

VI. THE FALLACY OF PROVING THE WRONG CONCLUSION

Another logical fallacy in which the evolutionist is involved is that of proving the wrong conclusion. He is like the Irishman who wanted to prove, contrary to the testimony of three eye-witnesses that he was not guilty of stealing, because he could produce thirty witnesses that did not see him do it. Just so the evolutionist points to the mutations of, for example, the fruit fly. All that the evidence proves is that there are mutations which can be produced in the fruit fly. That is the only conclusion that such evidence supports. The evolutionist however, proves the wrong conclusion and maintains that such things prove that the theory of organic evolution is thereby demonstrated.

There are other things which could be mentioned but these are sufficient to indicate that the theory of evolution is simply a theory, and not a demonstrated fact. The reader who wants thoroughly to investigate the theory, or to be more accurate the theories of evolution, should consult the books recommended in the section following the remarks on "Faulty Reading." In addition to these we recommend the pamphlet on Evolution which may be ordered for twenty cents from the International Christian Crusade, 366 Bay St., Toronto, 1, Canada. On pages 92-93 a list of recommended readings will be found. This pamphlet is excellent to circulate among college students who are having difficulties because of the theory.

C. THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF MAN

Unbelievers have sometimes pointed to the vast expanse of the sky, with its countless stars and its unlimited expanse; and then they point to man: how small, how insignificant he is; and how short his life. Man, they say, is so insignificant that God, if there is a God, would not be interested in him, as the Bible teaches that He is interested in man. As the poet said

"Stately purpose, valour in battle, splendid annals of army and fleet, Death for the right cause, death for the wrong cause, shouts of triumph, sighs of defeat, Raving politics, never at rest while this poor earth's pale history runs:

What is it all but the murmur of gnats in the gleam of a million million suns?"

Of course, we might ask: If this is the true picture of man's value, then there is not much reason that man should take any consideration of man. What would it matter that the gnat's murmur ceased today instead of tomorrow?

But this is not the true picture; reason shows that the measuring standard is wrong. It is true that in some ways man is insignificant. This was recognized by the psalmist, but knowing God's standard of measurement as revealed in God's care for man, he did not stop with the view of the littleness of man in comparison with the stars of the heavens.

"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

What is man, that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.

Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou bast put all things under his feet:

All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." (Psalms 8:3-8)

God's mindfulness of man overwhelms us, especially when we recognize that God commendeth His own love toward us in that while we were yet enemies Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8-10) .

But back to the logic of the person who contrasts the size of man with the size of the universe and concludes that man is of no value. If the individual will remember that he himself is not quite enough of a fool to make size the supreme measuring rod of life, why should he think that God would make it the standard of value? "A little courageous thinking will show us that this logic of mere size--the logic of the foot-rule and of the grocer's scales--has no relevancy in the realm in which man stands. It does not run in the great spiritual kingdoms to which he belongs.

"We act on this belief every day in the circle of our lives. We refuse to be bullied by mere scale. In the realm of love, for example--and that realm is the highest, the sweetest, and the noblest we know--mere physical bulk has no relevance. It might almost be described as an impertinence. Will any mother consent to have the value of her child measured in inches, or assessed in pounds avoirdupois? She may be told that the house is a thousand times bigger than the baby, and this is true. But in love's realm the argument of the foot-rule does not count. In the scales of a mother's values all the Himalayan and Alps of the planet are less than her infant!"

What if the stars are numberless and the expanse is limitless, it is still man who charts the heavens, and thinks about the stars. Man is superior to them; he sees them, they do not see him. He is living, intelligent, and spiritual; but they are lifeless matter. "Man belongs in the last analysis to the moral order. This is his essential characteristic and distinction. He can not only think; he can love and will. His character is the field--or, it. may be--of the greatest moral qualities, of love imperishable, of goodness, of righteousness. In the realm of the natural affections as we have seen, and in the kingdom of the intellect, material bulk has neither value or relevancy. How much more must this be true in the yet loftier world of moral character!"

Thus it is that a little reflection indicates that the size of man, physically speaking, has nothing to do with the question of faith in, God. It should not be used as a hindrance to the growth of faith.

Lest, however, the reader conclude that no one, of any note has been blind enough to measure man and his value by the mass of the stars, etc., we quote from the well known English unbeliever, Bertrand Russell. In What I Believe he wrote: "The philosophy of nature must not be unduly terrestrial; for it, the earth, is merely one of the smaller planets of one of the smaller stars of the Milky Way. It would be ridiculous to warp the philosophy of nature in order to bring out results that are pleasing to the tiny parasites of this insignificant planet. Vitalism as a philosophy, and evolutionism, show, in this respect, a lack of sense of proportion and logic relevance. They regard the facts of life, which are personally interesting to us, as having a cosmic significance, not a significance confined to the earth's surface. Optimism and pessimism, as cosmic philosophies, show the same naive humanism; the great world, so far as we know it from the philosophy of nature, is neither good nor bad, and it is not concerned to make us either happy or unhappy. All such philosophies spring from self-importance, and are best corrected by a little astronomy."

That Russell failed to see, with his keenness of mind, the fallacies involved in this measuring rod for the value and importance of man, is another indication of the fact that men become extremely blind through their passions and prejudices. When we consider the Bible and astronomy we do not draw the hopeless conclusion that Russell has drawn; instead we stand amazed, with the psalmist David, that God has been mindful of man. Instead of being dwarfed by the heavens, we see them declaring the glory of God and "forever singing as they shine, the hand that made us is divine." Russell's unbelief is not due to the immensity of the universe, however, but to other things such as the carnal condition of his heart, as is indicated by his remarks concerning morality, in What I Believe. It is the author's intention to deal with these remarks in the book on the consequences of unbelief; for immorality is both a cause and a consequence of unbelief.

IV. IS THE BIBLE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC?

In a book on Science and the Scriptures it is the author's intention, the Lord willing, to deal in detail with the charge that the Bible is unscientific and that it has tended to discourage scientific research. Here, however, we shall say only enough to indicate that the Bible itself has encouraged the study of nature, although some theologians may have departed from the Bible from time to time and have failed to encourage it. This, of course, is not the fault of the Bible, but of those who misrepresent it.

The book of Job alone contains several encouragements to study nature, and even sets before mankind some questions with which we still wrestle. To some who claimed great knowledge Job said: "No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." (Job 12:1). Then he invited them to study nature. "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the birds of the heavens, and they shall tell thee; or speak to the earth and it shall teach thee; and the fishes of the sea shall declare it unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these, that the hand of Jehovah bath wrought this . . ." (Job 12:7-9) . Those who accept the invitation to study the beasts will be led into the field of biology; those who consider the marvels manifested in bird life invade the field of ornithology; those who carefully listen to the earth are geologists; and those who listen to the fishes of the sea long enough become expert ichthyologists.

In another place (Job 38:1 -) , God asked Job a number of questions, and they still, in the main, stump scientists. Nowhere does God's word discourage investigation which is conducted in the right attitude and which is desirous of discerning truth and not of supporting error. The Christian can enter into every field of legitimate scientific work that any other individual can enter into, and all without one word of condemnation from the Bible. Faith in God does not discourage him in his search for truth in the natural world; instead he is encouraged by the thought that in doing so he is finding what God has placed before man and invited him to investigate.

In drawing this chapter to a close it is the author's conviction that these theories of some scientists, which have been used to destroy faith in the Bible, are theories which are held not because of the evidence but in spite of the lack of evidence for them and in the face of evidence which is against them. Scientists, some of them, and their theories may oppose the Bible at times but in such cases the conflict is between the Bible and the prejudices of scientists, and not between the facts and teachings of the Bible and the facts of science.

The following chapter on "The Bible and The Intellect" also refutes the charge just considered.