The Bible does not claim to be a scientific treatise. This was not the purpose for which it was written. Its own account of its origin is that "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:21.) The resultant production was a book, compiled over many centuries by many writers, known as the Holy Scriptures.

"The holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation." (2 Timothy 3:15.)

In these words is described the purpose that God intended them to serve. For as John wrote: "These are written that ye might believe ... and that believing ye might have life" (i.e. eternal life). (John 20:31.) All things which are conducive to this end are revealed in the Bible's pages. All extraneous matters of mere interest, or those which would only serve to gratify idle curiosity, are omitted.

Now a book written on the subject of astronomy does not specifically treat of chemistry. But the writer may have cause to make a few incidental references to chemistry in the treatment of his subject; and if his knowledge of chemistry is sound, he will not be found guilty of an untrue statement even in a casual observation which he may make.

Thus it is with the Bible, the object of whose composition we have already stated. Coming from God, as we believe, it cannot possibly be convicted of any unscientific teaching. Occasionally, and incidentally, it makes references of a scientific nature, but we can say, without fear of successful contradiction, that there is not one genuine ascertained scientific truth that can discredit the Bible records. Not one!

This cannot even be said of any scientific treatise that is at least a few years old; for as Professor Drummond once declared, "The text books of ten years ago are obsolete today." ("Ascent of Man," page 10.)

Sir James Jeans, writing recently to contradict theories held only fifty years ago, said:

"Yet so securely did they seem to be established that they were treated as indisputable universal laws." ("Mysterious Universe," page 67.)

He then proceeded to argue against these once "laws." This continual change is inseparably bound up with scientific progress, as we hope to show.

LIFE IN THE BLOOD

When the Bible made a statement its assertion has to remain in cold print--unrevised, unchanged and unexpunged--a silent but confident challenge to successive generations of hostile critics--lay, ecclesiastical, and scientific. With what result? Just this: although there have been times when the current knowledge has seemed to convict the Bible of inaccuracy, time only has been required to vindicate completely the Bible record and confound its opponents.

Let us now illustrate this principle of incidental reference by looking at a typical example--an instance where, in the course of revealing a truth about animal sacrifice and the reason for its efficacy, the Scriptures make an incidental statement concerning the attributes of blood:

"For it is the life of all flesh; . . . ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof." (Lev. 17:14.)

Now what views, if any, were entertained by early physiologists on this matter we do not know; but we do know that many of their views on life and its functions were as fabulous as their views on creation (to which we shall be referring later). It is, therefore, more than probable that this casual statement in Leviticus, on the nature of blood, conveyed no physiological truth to anyone for scores of centuries. Indeed, this unique statement would exist contemporary with ages during which the most extravagant and mythical opinions were rampant. If the scientists of past ages had been consulted on this matter it is certain that they could never have agreed with Moses; it is questionable whether they would even have understood him.

However, time rolled on until the 17th century was reached. Then we read of a great discovery which made the name of William Harvey world famous. Harvey is credited with the discovery of blood circulation. Writing of the blood he says:

"It is the fountain of life, the first to live and the last to die: the primary seat of the animal soul (life): it lives and is nourished of itself and by no other part of the human body."

This quotation read side by side with Leviticus will serve to show better than any words of ours the remarkable harmony existing between them.

Here, then, we have an apparently chance, and certainly incidental, remark shown to be absolutely scientific in the light of modern discovery. And let us note here that science has come into line with the Bible, not the Bible with science. The Bible stands still: science moves. For this there is only one rational explanation--the Bible is of God, and from God. Try to account for it on any other ground and you will be compelled to confess the overwhelming strength of the position we are endeavouring to maintain.

If this instance of the blood stood alone, one might be disposed to attribute its record to coincidence. But it is not alone by any means. The Bible is full of such statements, the very nature of which would make them extremely vulnerable to the attacks of modern progress if they were false, or even faulty.

The Bible has now been before the world for thousands of years. It has witnessed the rise, decline, and fall of one scientific theory after another. Indeed, revolutionary changes have from time to time altered the whole face of scientific inquiry; but the Bible has survived them all, unchanged and unperturbed.

When science has appeared to conflict, the resultant hostile criticism and searching inquiry of one kind or another has only served to strengthen the Bible's claims. Often at such periods it has been suspect through false witnesses, but these have later been discredited. The Bible, however, has never been convicted of error or found guilty of fault. Never! Time has always vindicated the Scriptures.

FIRE OR ICE

From time to time statements are made by scientists concerning the future of the earth. These statements are given prominence by the Press and usually enjoy a brief popularity. There seem to be two principal opinions. One is the belief that the earth is gradually getting colder because the sun is losing heat by its prodigious radiation. Those who support this view say that the time will come when extreme cold will make it impossible to sustain life on the earth any longer.

The other equally clever and equally speculative opinion is voiced by those who declare that the earth's movement round the sun is gradually losing its original momentum. This loss of speed is continually reducing its orbit, so that we are now being inexorably drawn nearer and nearer the sun. This will continue (they assure us), and we shall get progressively hotter and eventually collide with and be swallowed up in the sun.

These mutually destructive theories are received with respectful attention because they come from "scientists." If one is right, the other is wrong. They could both be wrong. We most certainly believe that both are wrong, because God's purpose with the earth necessitates and guarantees its eternal duration. For "the meek shall inherit the earth ... and dwell therein for ever." (Ps.37:11-12.)

Thus the divine promise is:-"The earth abideth for ever." (Eccles. 1:5.) How one scientist can observe a gradual cooling and another a gradual heating, we do not profess to know. We are, however, going to submit what we feel is a good analogy in either case.

INSECT ASTRONOMERS

There are certain ephemeral organisms whose lives are measured in hours only. If such creatures were given power to observe and reason, they would note that, as winter approached, the sun got lower and lower in the heavens, and that this was accompanied by a progressively falling temperature.

Many generations of these insect astronomers would succeed each other in a few months. Each generation would leave their observations and calculations carefully recorded. Thus the contemporary generation would be able to point to the long and accurate records of their forbears which testified to a progressively declining sun.

This scientific phenomenon would, of course, receive corroboration as a result of their own observations also. Thus they would arrive at a "scientific" conclusion based on long and patiently acquired data. It would be "scientific" for them to affirm that the progressive decline of the sun and its attendant fall in temperature must continue at its present rate to fulfil a natural law with which there can be no interference. They would declare that the present rate of decline must eventually result in the total disappearance of the sun which has for so long illumined and warmed our earth.

The lay brethren of these learned astronomers would not have the ability to question these profound findings; not even if they felt so disposed. THUS WOULD ERROR SIT ENTHRONED AS TRUTH, AND REIGN UNCHALLENGED IN INSECTIANA.

We earth-borns, of course, are so much superior to these ephemeral insects. We could smile indulgently at their self-important airs and their imaginary profundity which has led them into such (to us) short-sighted effors! You see, we have no need to speculate on such a short lived phenomenon as approaching winter. We know what is happening and why. We have lived through many winters with their declining suns. We have also witnessed many springs. We have seen an end to the sun's decline. We have watched the operation in reverse with its resultant ascending sun and increasing warmth.

TYNDALL'S QUESTION

Surely there is a lesson here for us, the superiors of the insect astronomers, unless we can possibly believe that there is no relatively greater power than ourelves with relatively greater length of life and experience . . . unless we believe that man is the highest form of life and intelligence! Many great men have had their minds exercised by this matter. Among them was Prof. Tyndall, who said:

"Can it be that there is no being . . . in nature that knows more about these matters than I do? Can it be that I, in my ignorance, represent the highest knowledge existing of these things in the universe? ... The man who puts that question to himself, if he be not a shallow man: if he be capable of being penetrated by a profound thought, will never answer it by professing that creed of atheism which has been so lightly attributed to me."

Believing this to be so, can there not also be correspondingly greater fluctuations in natural phenomena of which such an intelligence is as familiar as we are with the changing seasons of winter and summer? Indeed, we know it must be so, for has not the science of astronomy, speaking to us, as it does, of suns and systems which have only completed a fraction of their mighty cycles since Eden, made us familiar with some? Just think of it if you can! The history of the human race has only been long enough to be contemporary with a fraction of one mighty cycle. Are we then relatively so much greater than those misguided insects-are we?

What then, in the light of these facts, are men's speculations worth--even if they are based on "observed tendencies"? Is there such a great disparity between our reasoning and that of our insect astronomers? We think not.

God lives--not only to see but to control the tendencies; for it was He who launched the myriad worlds into space. He also foreordained their expanding and contracting orbits. He knows that they are destined to rock up and down, to increase and decrease their speeds and to go through other millennia-occupying changes and phases.

THE "BELL OF ETERNITY"

But, by analogy, we have good grounds for believing that every change is compensatory and periodic. The limits of mutation are fixed like our summer and winter solstices, so that the orbs of heaven having gone through their mighty cycles of change will, in countless ages, return to their original positions in space. Then, as one writer beautifully expresses it,

"The bell of eternity will have struck one."

In contrast to such aeons of time we are but human insects who "spend our lives as a tale that is told," or as a "watch in the night when it is passed." It therefore ill behoves such transitory creatures as we to make pontifical pronouncements on such infinite subjects. As natural men we can know very, very little: not even the most accomplished of us, as the more accomplished seem so ready to admit. If only men would occupy their evanescent life by seeking out the wisdom of God instead of dissipating their waning powers on an illusory and mocking will-o-the-wisp!

"Science is the most that is known at any given moment." If you need convincing of this truth, a little reading will do it for you." The knowledge of today discredits the science of yesterday," so that Sir James Jeans, the great astronomer, speaking of certain laws of conservation, says:

"Nineteenth-century physicists were accustomed to write of them as though they governed the whole creation, and on this basis philosophers dogmatised as to the fundamental nature of the universe."

HISTORY'S WARNING

Always bear this principle in mind when current scientific theories run counter to what you believe to be a well established truth. Remember the significant words of Professor Huxley, who admits that "history warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and end as superstitions." ("Darwiniana," page 229.)

By the same analogy, it is but stating a truism to say that "tomorrow the knowledge of today will be incomplete and fallacious." Let us illustrate this truth and thus show the folly of being unduly disturbed by every passing wind of current science.

From the time of Ptolemy, about the middle of the 2nd century, until the time of Copernicus, about the middle of the 16th century, an unvaried belief was held by the scientific world. It was a conviction that the earth was a fixed centre about which the whole Universe was revolving, just as a wheel revolves round its hub. What we now believe to be the apparent movement of sun, moon and stars (due to the earth's diurnal revolution), they believed to be an actual movement. They thought that the sun really moved from east to west during the day, and the stars and moon likewise by night.

This supposed order of things was known as the "Ptolemaic system," after its propounder, Ptolemy; and, says one writer, it "held sway with the sanction of infallible science and the blessing of an infallible church." It was not just a passing phase or a hotly contested opinion like evolution, for "it filled the colleges and universities and fastened itself upon the age with a tenacity which permitted no one to question or doubt."

By this we realise that had we lived in those days and professed a belief in the science of today, we should have been denounced as "unscientific" by the scientist, and punished--as many were--as "heretics" by an apostate church.

PLEASE DISCRIMINATE

We would like to digress here in order to observe that we have no sympathy with the beastly persecution of the scientists of earlier times, or the vile conduct of the priestly inquisitors. Men today are justly indignant at this loathsome conduct. The Bible gives no warrant for such wicked procedure, although it seems to be so often blamed for the conduct of these bestial men--men who have had the effrontery to claim to be its divinely appointed custodians but who have done all in their power to suppress its teaching. We should make it perfectly clear that we are not defending the so-called church. We renounce it with loathing and abhorrence. We are fully alive to the evil which it has done. We can fully sympathise with the thinking man in his just condemnation of a time-serving, king-pleasing, people-oppressing, progress-obstructing hierarchy. We appeal to the ordinary thinking man and woman to be careful to discriminate between the church and the Bible.

The Bible, far from justifying the church's wickedness, has, in the hands of faithful men, been the church's greatest opponent. Hence, history records how the church has done her best to suppress the Bible, which has always been her biggest stumbling block in the way of obtaining complete control over the bodies and lives of her dupes: not even stopping short of burning men and women whose only crime was that they possessed a Bible which they refused to give up. Having, we hope, made our position clear, we will return now to the Ptolemaic system.

"WISDOM" IN ERROR

The Ptolemaic theory may have seemed above question at the time, nevertheless it was eventually not only called in question, but decisively overthrown. It was not just modified, revised, or amended, but completely displaced by Copernicus and his successors.

This revolutionary "Copernician system" taught that the sun did not travel round the earth, but that, on the contrary, the earth travelled round the sun: that the earth by turning on its own axis created the illusion of the sun's movement. A simple, elementary, self-evident explanation! Yes, so we may be tempted to believe now; but remember that for fourteen centuries all the world's learned ones were opposed to it. FOR FOURTEEN CENTURIES THE WISDOM OF THE WORLD WAS ON THE SIDE OF ERROR.

Science having adjusted itself to this new philisophy, what then? Had science now come to stay? By no means! Nothing stays but the word of God. Time only was required to witness the calling in question of this new system. Copernicus and his fellows believed that the planets which pursued their paths round the earth were steered in their orbits and impelled on their courses like independent ships on the sea, each empowered and guided on its own independent track with no interdependency.

COPERNICUS DISCREDITED

Then came Sir Isaac Newton with his theory of universal gravitation; and Copernicus, in this matter at least, was discredited and relegated to the shelf of scientific back numbers. However, here at least was a really satisfactory explanation of things. Newton's wonderful findings appeared to be unanswerable and final; and well they might. Many still believe them to be so; but not all. His physics are now openly disputed, and his wonderful law of gravitation is not so irrevocably established as it was once thought. At least, this is the view of Professor Einstein, the originator of the theory of relativity.

His theory questions the conceptions of Newton; and some believe he is right in so doing. Thus Sir James Jeans says:

"Of recent years Einstein has shown that Newton's mathematical statement of the law (gravitation) was not absolutely correct. Also the pull has proved to be of a rather different nature from that conjectured by Newton." ("Stars in their Courses," page 74.)

Einstein's amazing theory is that space is finite because it is bent and returns back on itself. So that if you were to look to the west at a very distant Nebula, you would also see the same Nebula by turning right about face and gazing into the east. You are thus able to see it from both directions because you are looking round the edge (for want of a better term) of space. Just as, in the same way, you could reach Australia by setting out from England and travelling west, via America and the Pacific Ocean, whilst a friend could travel to the same destination by travelling east, via the Mediterranean and Suez. To make sure that we do not misrepresent this theory, we will quote Sir James Jeans:

"If we look in the direction exactly opposite to the constellation Andromeda, we ought to see Andromeda again as a very small and dim object." ("Stars in their Courses," page 41.)

The whole idea sounds ridiculous and presents what seem insuperable difficulties, but it is not our intention to ridicule or disagree. We frankly confess to an incapacity to understand what it all means. It may be wrong, or it may be right; and as much as we may feel inclined to be incredulous, the lessons of the past bid us be cautious.

A CHANGING SCIENCE

An amusing and instructive illustration of changing science here occurs to us. It was told by Dr. T. J. Parker:

"Little more than 200 years ago (from 1890), one, Alexander Ross, commenting on Sir Thomas Browne's doubt as to 'whether mice may be bred by putrefaction,' says, 'So may he doubt whether in cheese and timber worms are generated. . . . To question this is to question reason, sense, and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt and there be will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of the Nylus to the great calamity of the inhabitants.'"

But the one thing we would impress again is the lesson to be learned. It is this--how very foolish it is for a Bible believer to be unduly influenced by what science may be saying. How foolish it is to attempt to bring the Word of God into line with "modern progress." The Bible does not need such well intentioned, but misdirected, help: The Bible does not need to be squared with modern science. Give modern science time to become finished science and it will be found of itself to square with the Bible. God has spoken through the Bible once and for all. He has spoken irrevocably and declared:

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11.)

Science is continually moving. If it were stationary and complete and its final findings were contrary to scripture --but there, why "if"? science is very incomplete; and if the utterances of some great scientific and sober thinkers are to be trusted, science will never be a finality. Professor Tyndall in an inaugural address once said:

"Science does not in any degree lessen the wonder with which we look at the material universe. At best it only marshals the phenomena of nature under the head of all its sequences which are called law; but the great ocean of the unknown simply recedes as we advance; and all the researches that science may make to the end of time will never abridge by one hair's breadth the infinite expanse of mystery across the boundless ocean. The curiosity of the intellect will always sail towards an ever vanishing horizon."

Tyndall is typical of many others who have expressed themselves in a similar way. We seem to detect a certain wistfulness underlying such utterances, a yearning for certainty, a desire for rest from doubt. But still they are urged on by an irrepressible desire to know more and still more. They have a desire to see where the next bend in this interminable river of knowledge will bring them; then fresh discoveries bring fresh disappointments and the end seems further off than ever: the mirage mocks; fresh problems baffle. The urge is still onward, ever onward until at last the spirit fails with advancing years and failing health, and at the last men feel the uselessness and dissatisfaction of it all. Maybe for the first time in their lives--and too late--they perceive the truth of Solomon's words:

"All is vanity and vexation of spirit."

A RECEDING HORIZON

We feel a certain pity for these men who seem at the mercy of a restless, questing spirit. They realise with Tyndall that they are striving to attain the unattainable: to reach an ever receding horizon that levitates before their eager gaze, and mocks at all their efforts. Like bewitched children walking expectantly towards a rainbow, it must ever elude their grasp. If they would only give a tithe of their time and zeal to a study of the Scriptures, what wise and happy men they could be! But it is not to be, at least not just yet. Meanwhile, they are caught up and borne along by a machine of their own making which they are no longer able to control.

Thus it is that science is continually moving, continually changing. To have a Bible that is in harmony with "modern science" you must needs change and modify its teaching from time to time. You must revise your explanations as often as the exigences of a changing science demand it.

Some there are who are foolish enough to attempt this, with the effect of making themselves despised and of discrediting the Bible still further in the eyes of its critics. But who is to blame for this? Certainly not the Bible. It just does not want harmonising with science. It does not need it. The Bible has remained unperturbed and unchanged through its many centuries of existence, during which time it has witnessed the transitory phases of many scientific eras. The storms of controversy have often raged round it--storms which, when their fury is spent, pass on, leaving their trail of wreckage behind: not Bible wreckage, but that of once revered human opinions. As Professor Scott of Princeton, U.S.A., wrote:

"The pathway of science is strewn with the wrecks of hypotheses and theories which have served their purpose and have been worn out and discarded."

A CAUTIOUS ASTRONOMER

Modern scientists of the more sober type are coming more and more to recognise the unstable nature of their many findings. Sir James Jeans is a good example of this growing wariness. In his book "The Mysterious Universe" he is continually making guarded statements, and the perplexity he feels shows itself quite clearly in several places. Often the inclusion of the one word--GOD-- would solve his problem, but he hesitates to use it. Often he seems to be almost afraid of his own conclusions. He then resorts to evasive language in order to avoid the issue. This spirit of caution is illustrated in the following words:

"It is too often overlooked that we can only discuss these questions in the terms of probabilities. The man of science is used to the reproach that he changes his views all the time it is no true reproach that in exploring the river of knowledge he occasionally goes down a backwater instead of continuing along the main stream. What is more serious and beyond the control of the explorer is that the river is a winding one, Flowing now east, now west. . . . With this caution in mind it seems at least safe to say that the river of knowledge has made a sharp bend in the last few years . . . and yet who knows how many more times the stream of knowledge may turn on itself, and with this reflection before us we may well conclude by adding what might well have been interlined into every paragraph, that EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID AND EVERY CONCLUSION TENTATIVELY PUT FORWARD IS QUITE FRANKLY SPECULATIVE AND UNCERTAIN." ("Mysterious Universe," page 188.)

A DISDAINFUL CRITIC

With this most reasonable attitude of mind we have no quarrel. We may feel that such men are wasting precious time, when all that we need to know on this side of immortality is clearly revealed; but that is their own business, and we have no quarrel with them. Our quarrel is confined to those who venture outside legitimate inquiry to attack or discredit God's word: men such as Professor Huxley, who disdainfully declared that the contents of this precious book were the "imaginations current among the rude inhabitants of Palestine recorded by writers whose very name and age are admitted by every scholar to be unknown ... the cosmogeny of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox." ("Darwiniana," page 51.)

It is thus that this man dismisses the Bible and brands its lovers as "Bibliolaters."

But here in Sir James Jeans we are dealing with a man whose knowledge of astronomy has made him humble, and in order to impress on you the folly of being distracted or diverted by changing science, we would like to quote his closing words:

"We have tried to discuss whether present day science has anything to say on certain difficult questions which are perhaps set for ever beyond the reach of human understanding. We cannot claim to have discerned more than a very faint glimmer of light at the best: perhaps it was wholly illusory, for certainly we had to strain our eyes to see any thing at all. So that our main contention can hardly be that the science of to-day has a pronouncement to make. Perhaps it ought rather to be that SCIENCE SHOULD LEAVE OFF MAKING PRONOUNCEMENTS: THE RIVER OF KNOWLEDGE HAS TOO OFTEN TURNED BACK ON ITSELF." ("Mysterious Universe," page 188.)

THE WISE SUSPEND JUDGMENT

Thus wisdom does not lie in the tiring pursuit of "vanishing horizons," or living in a continual state of agitation and uncertainty. Rather is it in a study of the Bible, which reveals a system of religion and hope as enduring, unchanging, and stable as the great God who is its author. A reverent study of its pages will create a conviction of its truth. Familiarity with its doctrines will bring a peace of mind to which the unbeliever must for ever be a stranger.

The utterances of Sir James Jeans should at least be sufficient to show that when scientific facts appear to clash with revelation, it is wise to suspend judgment. That is the least we can do. How much needless sorrow would have been avoided if men had suspended judgment in the case of the evolution theory. Darwin himself was far from happy or convinced about it. You have but to read some of his writings to find a man often torn between opposing conclusions.

DARWIN'S UNCERTAINTY

He once wrote:

" In my wildest day dream I never expect more than to be able to shew that there are two sides to the question of the immutability of species, i.e., whether species are directly created or by intermediate law." ("Life and Letters," Vol. 2, 34.)

In other words, he believed there were two possible explanations of creation: and God must be in either one. Firstly, God (or as Darwin likes to term Him, the "first cause") created a few lower forms of life and endowed them with the power to evolve--and this by what Darwin calls an "intermediate law." Secondly, He did it by direct creation of the species as we know them today.

This attitude of Darwin does not please his modern disciples. He gives ground too easily. Do you not see the point? Darwin seems to raise no objection to either in the final outcome. The most he could hope to do was to point to a possible alternative to a specific creation of species. Well, we have weighed his reasons in the balance and found them wanting. Thus we have made our choice for reasons which we trust have been made plain.

This uncertainty of Charles Darwin repeatedly crops up, as could be shown by many extracts from his writings. He speaks in one place of Paley's "Natural Theology" and says that at one time Paley's arguments appeared conclusive on design and creation, and therefore proved an intelligent Creator. But then he feels that perhaps natural selection might explain things as well.

NO REAL EVIDENCE

When questioned by disturbed but believing friends about these things he would say, "Yes, sometimes I feel it must be so, but at other times not," etc. He also wrote:

"Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see that there are numerous immense difficulties in my notions." ("Life and Letters," Vol. 2, 34.)

So the most Darwin did was to suggest an alternative to creation of species which the Bible alone records and for which it vouches by many proofs open to our investigation. This alternative is put forward almost apologetically at times by its founder and has never been substantiated by a shred of indisputable evidence. It has, however, been often disproved by much contrary evidence.

"I AM SO PERSUADED"

In view of the strength of these facts, we can understand the distress of many devout church persons when they see their religious leaders capitulating to these scientific errors instead of combating them. Such men, for instance, as Dr. Barnes, Bishop of Birmingham, who, preaching at Westminster Abbey, declared:

"I was taught (evolution) as a boy, and I cannot remember the Genesis narrative of creation as a record of fact . . . practically all students in our universities would as soon think of doubting that the earth goes round the sun as denying man's animal origin,"

We wonder if he "remembered" this when a few years earlier he received his licence to preach? Then, in response to the officiating Archbishop's question,

"Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation . . ."

he answered,

"I am persuaded: and determined--out of the same Scriptures to instruct the people committed to (my) charge."

This oath has been dishonoured by this Bishop, for in the same Abbey sermon he declared:-

"Darwin's assertion, that man sprang from the ape, has stood the test of more than half a century of critical examination . . . the stories of the CREATION OF ADAM AND EVE, of their primal innocence, and of their fall, have as a result become to US FOLKLORE."

Thus BISHOP BARNES GIVES THE LIE DIRECT TO JESUS, who declared: "He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female." (Matt. 19:4); and to the apostle Paul who writes of "The first man Adam." (1 Cor. 15:45). In this same Westminster Abbey this Bishop also declared:

"Evolution began as a possible theory. Darwin shewed that it was a probable theory. We now assume it to be a fact . . . the doctrine must be accepted because experts who examine all the available evidence are thereby convinced of its truth."

POINTLESS SURRENDER

Well, we already knew that this Jesus-contradicting bishop was a poor Christian. Now we know that he is also a poor scientist, because all are not convinced, as we have already plainly shown.

What a pitiable spectacle we have here of abject cowardly surrender. Such conduct would find a parallel in the surrender of a mighty battleship to a threatening trawler! The fact is, these Churchmen do not know the strength of the cause which they are hired to preach; doubtless it is because they are "hirelings" that they run from danger, for "The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling and careth not for the sheep." (John 10:13.) We can sympathise with the distress of the scattered sheep. Might we suggest that they look around for more reliable shepherds?

Surely no man, knowing the unassailable power of Holy writ, ever need defer to the opinions of pseudo-science or succumb to the opposition of blatant unbelief. These time serving theologians are unable to put up a fight when the Word of God is attacked because they are strangers to its revelation and unfamiliar with its contents. Through long disuse their swords are rusted tight in their scabbards. Inactivity has paralysed their right arm and their brain. Thus are learned bishops made captive by a fairy story the fairy story of evolution.

This success of the opposition, in the case of the clergy, is not due to the strength of the attack but to the weakness of the defence--a weakness that is not in the Bible itself but in the nerveless ineptitude of its professing friends. As we have already shown, believers all down the ages could have continually changed their views to harmonise with "modern science" had they been so disposed. Those who now seek such conformity with each passing scientific phase, must needs change again and again like fickle chameleons, thus bringing themselves into ridicule and God's precious word into undeserved reproach.

This shameless betrayal of the scriptures by Bishop Barnes is not an isolated case. Indeed, there has been a representative rejection of the Creation story by the Church of England. In 1922 a commission was appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to report on doctrine in the Church. When the report was issued, this is how one section read:

"No objection to a theory of Evolution can be drawn from the two Creation narratives in Genesis I and 2 since it is generally agreed among educated Christians that these are mythological in origin, and their value for us is symbolic rather than historical."

Thus are the scriptures degraded to the level of the Chaldeans myths, of Tiamat--at which we shall be looking later.

SCIENTIFIC CHAMPIONS

Now, the remarkable part of this incredible statement is that "educated Christians" are supposed to have become enlightened in their views by "modern science," as witness the declaration of Bishop Barnes.

It is here that we are confronted with an amazing anomaly. The Bible, which is so lightly abandoned by the self-styled ambassadors of Jesus Christ, is retrieved by scientists and, by them, stoutly defended. By "stoutly" we mean a whole-hearted, unreserved acceptance of it as the inspired and infallible word of God.

We have in mind one such scientist who, as far as we can see, is not exactly lacking in education, as the learned commission would imply. Hence, we give his name and (although we do not place undue emphasis on this) his educational qualifications.

Sir Ambrose Fleming, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., sometime President of The Victoria Institute and Philosophical Society of Great Britain; President of the Television Society; Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of London; Honorary Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge; Fellow of University College, London; Honorary Life Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts; Honorary Fellow of the Franklin Institute, U.S.A.

Sir Ambrose is, then, an educated and professing Christian. Far from attacking the Genesis account, he defends it in a robust manner which should make these traitorous theologians hang their heads in shame. He says:

"These acts of creation . . . are attested indirectly by all irrefutable evidence of the great miracle of the resurrection . . . In spite of all efforts or attempts to refute it, the evidence for its actuality is overwhelming, and is so acknowledged by all who have gone carefully into it."

Surely such a declaration becomes an indictment of the Bishops? The evidence of the resurrection sets its seat on the claims of Christ: and he set his seal on the creation records.

What then? Can it be that the Bishops haven't gone "carefully into it"? Such a suggestion may shock you. It may strike you as unthinkable, but to those who know anything of ecclesiastics it will come neither as a shock nor a surprise.

We believe, with Sir Ambrose, that the man who will "go carefully" into the matter cannot do anything else but believe. We are convinced that THE EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST WOULD WIN THE DAY IN ANY COURT OF LAW: and with that victory would go Christ's endorsement of the Old Testament scriptures.

That this matter could be legally dealt with and proved by court procedure, with counsel, judge, witness, and jury, has been interestingly and convincingly shown in a book called "The Trial: Did Christ Rise?" by R. Roberts. Mr. Roberts would rather have the job of proving Christ's resurrection in court than he would the conquests of Alexander or the victories of Napoleon; and, strange as it may sound, so would we; and this for a simple reason: there is more and better evidence for the one, than both the others put together. If you are incredulous, then read "The Trial" and judge for yourself.

Another scientist, viewing this strange spectacle of Bible-renouncing Bishops of which we have spoken, says:

"We have, then, this strange situation: that IT IS NOT THE MEN OF SCIENCE WHO OBJECT TO THE MIRACULOUS IN THE BIBLE, BUT RELIGIOUS LEADERS." (Dr. W. Bell Dawson, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Canada.)

What an indictment of the clergy this is--and from a scientist of all people.

With this crushing reply to the renegade commission of "the Church of England by law established," and to Bishop Barnes' ridiculous assertion that the experts who examine the evidence are convinced of evolution's truth, we will close this chapter.

Passing on to our next, we will seek to show that even unchristian scientists contribute their testimony to the scienific nature of Bible revelation. Yes, these show that the Bible's foes can "SCARCE FORBEAR TO CHEER."

Chapter 6