Now, there are these extreme theories, and I
think that we should probably consider them.
And by the way, may I say this,
that you can make a division here, a
twofold division, that if you're going to talk
about origins today, you're reduced either to speculation
or to creation.
Now, don't tell me science, because after all,
evolution has many theories today, and some of
the most reputable scientists of the past and
the present reject evolution.
So you can't put it down as being
a scientific statement like 2 plus 2 equal
4.
And then there is the creation account in
Genesis 1.
And that, by the way, you have to
accept by faith.
It's very interesting, God made it that way.
The only way in the world that you
can accept it.
That is the thing the writer to the
Hebrews says in the 11th chapter.
Now, faith is the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things not seen, for
by it the elders obtained a good report.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were
framed by the Word of God, so that
things which are seen were not made of
things which do appear.
So that today, the great problem still remains,
how did it get from nothing to something?
And the only way that you will ever
know that is by faith or speculation.
And speculation is very unscientific, by the way.
Now, I want to look at some of
these theories of creation.
And it's quite interesting to note them.
There are those that tell us today that,
my, what we should do is to accept
the scientific answer.
And I'd like to ask you, what is
the scientific answer?
What science are you talking about?
Professor Lyell, in the year of 1806, that
far back, he said that the French Institute
enumerated not less than 80 geological theories which
were hostile to the Scriptures, but not one
of these theories is held today.
That's quite interesting, by the way.
I know that many of us that were
in school, why, we were taught theories that
are not even taught today.
For instance, there was a time when Ptolemaic
science was held.
And may I say to you, it contradicted
the Book of Genesis, but I don't think
any reputable science today goes back and holds
to Ptolemaic science.
And then there's the Newtonian science.
And for years, the scientists of the world
held on to it and said it contradicted
the Bible, and it did.
And did you know that the Newtonian is
ruled out today?
And then I think I started off with
the nebular hypothesis.
And I was taught at one time that
matter is indestructible.
That was before the atom bomb, of course.
And now all of that is out the
window.
So when you say today that you want
to hold a scientific viewpoint over against the
Genesis account, I'd like to ask you what
science are you holding to?
And did you know that what is science
today may not be science tomorrow?
I'm told these books change every 10 years
and most of them every five years.
The fact of the matter is that the
purpose of Moses in writing, and I think
he'd smile at all this disturbance that's been
made today about the creation story, because he
didn't write it for that.
Paul says in 2 Timothy 3, 16 and
17, all Scripture is given by inspiration of
God.
It's profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness that the man of
God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished, or throughly
furnished unto all good works.
Now the purpose of Scripture was for what
purpose?
An instruction in righteousness.
This is not written to teach you geology
or biology.
It's not written for that at all.
It was written to show man's relationship to
God and God's requirements that he puts down
for man today and what man must do
to be saved.
You can write that over this first part
of the book of Genesis.
What must I do to be saved?
May I say to you, suppose God had
given a scientific statement of creation.
How many people of Moses' day would have
understood it?
And how many people even in our day
could grasp it?
You must remember that the Bible was not
written for learned professors, but for simple folk
of every age and every land.
But may I say that it's always appealed
to intelligent man.
And I mean intelligent man.
And for that reason, it's not couched in
that kind of language at all.
And if it had been written in the
scientific language of Moses' day, it certainly would
have been rejected.
And there are several solutions, therefore, man have
come up with relative to the origin of
the universe.
One is that it's an illusion.
And may I say to you, that is
certainly contrary to the facts, is it not?
And yet there are people that hold to
that.
And then there are those that say that
it spontaneously arose out of nothing.
Well, that's what the Bible says in a
way.
But you must remember God spoke, God created
it.
And then the third is that it had
no origin, but has existed eternally.
And then fourth, that it was created.
And then, of course, this breaks down into
many different ways that they have today of
trying to explain the origin of the universe,
that it came about in some very strange
fashion.
And I have before me, and I'm going
to share with you today, some of these
theories that man have advanced down through the
history of the world.
Now, we have this statement made by Dr.
Harlow Shapley, who was the director of Harvard
Observatory.
He says, we are still embedded in abysmal
ignorance of the world in which we live.
We've advanced very little relative to the total
surmisable extent of knowledge beyond the level of
wisdom acquired by animals of long racial experience.
We are to be sure no longer afraid
of strange squeaks in the dark, nor completely
superstitious about the dead.
On many occasions, we are valiantly rational.
Nevertheless, we know how much the unknown transcends
what we know.
And may I say to you, that is
without doubt a tremendous statement that has been
made.
And then it was Dr. Lawrence C.
Eisele, who was office of the provost at
the University of Pennsylvania.
He says, we do not know any more
about matter and how it's produced than we
know about spiritual things.
Therefore, I think it's unwise to say in
our present state of knowledge that the one
precludes the other.
The universe seems to exist as a series
of emergent levels, none of which is like
the level before.
That man and all the rest of life
have evolved and changed is undeniable.
But what lies beneath these exterior manifestations, we
do not know.
And then he added this, I wish I
could answer your question, but to clothe my
ignorance in big words would benefit neither yourself
nor me.
And it's too bad that some of these
men today that speak so learnedly and I
have here statements that I've taken out of
the popular press.
One article says that man, the mystery of
origin of the world, and that man is
on the verge of discovering that.
That happened to be written back in 1961.
Haven't had anything new on that since then,
by the way.
And then it was biologist Edwin Conklin speaking
of evolution that made this statement, the probability
of life originating by accident is comparable to
the probability of the unabridged dictionary originating from
an explosion in a print shop.
And that is something that, by the way,
sounds very unscientific coming from an outstanding scientist.
There are actually, I guess, three theories of
the universe that even astronomy has suggested.
And it's quite interesting to look at those
different theories.
One is known as the steady state theory.
One is the Big Bang theory.
And one is the oscillating theory.
Now, the Big Bang theory is the one
that Dr. William A.
Baum told the National Academy of Science meeting
at UCLA about, by the way, that now
scientists have come to the conclusion that it's
the Big Bang theory.
And I have the statement of Dr. R.
B.
Partridge of Princeton also.
And the Big Bang is that there was
a great big explosion way back yonder, oh,
billions of years.
I think 10 billions of years was the
last one.
And that we're in for another one in
probably another 10 billion years.
So I don't think we need to worry
about that a great deal.
But it's interesting that that is the explanation
that is offered today.
And you will find that Great Britain is
actually the one that fathered this theory.
And very frankly, we haven't heard very much
about the rocks that were brought back from
the moon.
Have you noticed that many of the scientists,
and certainly that's been true here in Southern
California, they just don't get worked up over
those rocks brought back from the moon because
they seem to disprove a theory that man
had.
Now, there was several years ago Dr. Leakey.
He was the son of a missionary, by
the way.
And he came up with the theory for
he found out yonder in Africa a skull.
He calls it the Nutcracker Man.
I guess that he had pretty good teeth.
And that he lived there 600,000 years
ago.
That's according to Dr. Leakey.
But we've had theories like that before.
And there are a great many men today
that are scientific men that don't fall for
that.
Now, there are other ways of explaining the
origin of man.
And back in Indianapolis, Dr. Lawrence S.
Dillon, he's associate professor of biology at Texas
A&M College.
And he says man's not an animal but
a plant which evolved from brown seaweed, this
man declared.
He says all animals are in reality a
type of highly modified plant life derived a
billion years or so ago from a common
ancestry with a brown seaweed.
Now, maybe you and I have been looking
in the wrong place for our grandpa and
grandma.
Some folk have been looking up a tree.
We should be out here pulling the seaweed
out because that's grandpa and grandma.
May I say to you some of this
really becomes ridiculous when you begin to put
it down either side of some other things.
May I say to you that after centuries
of bitter argument over how life on earth
began, and awe-inspiring answers emerging out of
the shrewd and patient detective work in laboratories
all over the world.
You know, that was in Reader's Digest a
long time ago.
And you would think by now we'd be
getting some sort of an answer or a
little encouragement, but none has been forthcoming.
It was a practice according to Dr. Talmadge
that the dogma which science follow is that
the archaeological finds of prehistoric cultural objects must
be so arranged that the cruder industries must
always be dated earlier than those of a
more advanced time, regardless of where they're found.
And may I say to you today it's
been a little disconcerting that sometimes they find
the advanced civilization underneath that which seemed to
be a prehistoric time.
Now there are so many other theories that
are offered today about how the earth began,
and it was Dr. Claus Mampel from Germany.
He says, I don't see any more reason
for seeing us, the human race, connected with
apes than with canary birds or kangaroos.
And may I say to you that maybe
that's the direction we ought to go to
look for our ancestors.