Yes, God lives. He gave us our creation, our earth, and all that is in it. He gave us also the sacred story of creation. He gave us the scriptures which provide it, and he gave us the testimony, his own testimony, that it is all true.

The discoveries of the anthropologists and their interpretation of those findings seem on the surface to be very convincing, but when they are carefully examined, they still are found to rest only upon hypothesis.

Unfortunately, such views are finding their way into the textbooks of our public schools and are being presented as though they were facts, as though they were proven beyond question. Hence our children are learning to accept those theories as facts and to regard evolution as the only true explanation of the origin of life. But not all scientists agree with the anthropologists by any means. For example:

Dr. Gerald T. Den Hartog, research agronomist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, writes: "By natural selection and human selection progress has been made in obtaining biotypes within each of the domesticated species. . . . However—and this is the great point to be stressed—basically the plant species remain the same all through the ages, regardless of selective processes, changes in climate and environment, or persistent and widespread attacks by biological enemies. The Creator's mandate in Gen. 1 is being carried out to this very day.

"A striking illustration of the persistency of plant species is provided by the archaeologists' finds of wheat seed and other plant products that correspond to our present-day species and that have remained relatively unchanged over thousands of years. . . .

"Plants reproduce after their kind, unfailingly. Inheritance does not proceed in a wild, haphazard, uncontrolled manner. Wheat produces wheat, barley barley, an olive tree an olive tree, under all sorts of environment, generation after generation.

"To me, this indicates the existence of a Creator-God, limitless both in knowledge and in power." (Monsma, op. cit., pp. 103-105.)

Agreeing with him is Dr. Walter Edward Lammerts, University of California geneticist, who says that although some mutations are obtained and are eagerly pointed to by evolutionists, as a rule they do not survive. ". . . most mutations are lethal," he says. ". . . the science of genetics offeres no evidence for belief in the two most basic assumptions of Charles Darwin. . . . Except for occasional mutations (changes), such lines breed true and do not vary in all possible directions as postulated by Darwin." (Ibid., p. 114.)

Dr. Lester Zimmerman, of Purdue University, specialist in plants and soils for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, asked the question: "Who was it that established and set in motion the laws of genetics and plant growth? . . . Where did the first plants come from? . . . a chance origin is logically out of the question, and the assumption of an intelligent originator is imperative: Who made the first plants?"

He then quotes Job, chapter 38, and concludes: "The answer of the Book of Job to the question of the origin and maintenance of the universe (and that naturally includes the plant world) is my answer. All Nature was originated by God, and He sustains it, incessantly." (Ibid., pp. 195-96.)

And the same reply refers to man as well as to plant life. Dr. Alfred G. Fisk of San Francisco State University, who wrote his Search for Life's Meaning to be used in philosophy classes at that school, quoted numerous outstanding scientists indicating that they believed in a divine creation by an Intelligent Designer. He then said: "Similar quotations from any number of leading scientists could be added to these we have given—including such names as those of the Nobel Prize winners, Compton and Millikan; the professor of geology at Harvard University, Kirtley F. Mather, and the great physicist, Michael Pupin. These scientists are not speaking from the point of view of religious experience; they are interpreting the world opened up to view by the scientific inquiry. It is in their judgment a world of unified structure, of order, of design. This unity implies to them, as it does to us, an Organizer, Designer, Orderer. Understanding the `laws' of chance, these scientists know that it is not reasonable to suppose that the orderliness of nature has come about by chance. They speak naturally, therefore, of the Architect, the Creator, the Intelligence at the heart of things—a Mind that is like the mind of a Great Mathematician, evidenced by the mathematical order of creation." (Fisk, op. cit., pp. 90-91.)

Fisk continues, speaking of creation: "One cannot reasonably account for the world we have on the basis of planless accident. The hypothesis of a Creator-god is a necessary postulate. As the scientist, Arthur H. Compton, has put it: `. . . Evidence from both biological and physical science makes it difficult to escape the conclusion that our world is controlled by a supreme Intelligence which directs creation according to some great plan.'" (Ibid., pp. 96-97.)

It was Robert Millikan who said: "Nothing could be more antagonistic to the whole spirit of science [than atheism]. It seems to me that anyone who reflects at all believes one way or another in God." (Quoted in Fisk, op. cit., p. 233.)

And Kirtley F. Mather, in Science in Search of God, is quoted as saying: "The more we know about the world in which we live, the better is our understanding of God, the truer our comprehension of His character. God is partially revealed by inanimate nature with its law abiding planets and its orderly chemical reactions. . . . But we find that power on a distinctly higher plane when we consider the lilies of the field or behold the fowls of the air. . . . Then when we investigate humanity and inquire into the nature of man, we greatly enlarge our estimate of the forces that can produce personality as well as organism." (New York: Henry Holt, 1928, pp. 74-75.)

Elmer Davis, widely known science writer, said in an article in Harper's, "So far from abolishing God, modern science—astrophysics in particular—comes near abolishing atheism." (Harper's, March 1930, p. 399.)

A. Cressy Morrison wrote a book on science and religion, titled Man Does Not Stand Alone; and a condensed volume of this work was published by Reader's Digest Press. Morrison served as president of the New York Academy of Sciences and of the American Institute of the City of New York, and was a member of the executive board of the National Research Council, a fellow in the American Museum of Natural History, and a life member of the Royal Institution of Great Britain.

When the book was published, Clare Boothe Luce, noted woman journalist, said: "I think this book has made more converts from Atheism to Theism than thousands upon thousands of the church tracts that are spread upon the land the year around." The Los Angeles Times said: "The book's argument is well-nigh overwhelming . . . worth anyone's time." The Christian Advocate wrote: "Piling fact upon fact the author shows the absurdity of the atheistic point of view."

Among other things, Morrison wrote the following: "The first chapter of Genesis contains the real story of creation, and its essence has not been changed by knowledge acquired since it was written. This statement will cause a smile to develop on the genial face of the scientist and a look of incredulity but satisfaction from the true believer."

After discussing the creation of the animals and the herbs and the fact that "I have given every green herb for meat," he says:

"Here is a statement in biology that is most surprising, considering the time it was made. It is correct and in perfect accord with scientific knowledge. The statement about green herbs was not proved true until the synthesis of chlorophyl was discovered and the fact that all life was dependent on every green thing was made known by science. So is the order of procedure from chaos to man and his dominion. Can science pick a flaw in this briefest story ever told? The world's history in a few lines of print? The rest is detail. We must accord our homage to the writer, unknown and unheralded, in complete humility bow to his wisdom and admit his inspiration. In the face of the simple truth here told, let us not quarrel over details due to translation and human interpolation or over the question of how God did his work or the time it took. Who knows? The facts as told have come down through the ages and are facts. . . .

"The scientist does not affirm, nor can he deny, the existence of Spirit or a Supreme Intelligence, yet in his inmost self he feels the impact of consciousness, thought, memory, and ideas emanating from that entity we call soul. He knows his inspiration does not come from matter. Science has no claim or right to the last word on the existence of a Supreme Intelligence until it can speak that word finally and forever." (A. Cressy Morrison, Man Does Not Stand Alone, Fleming H. Revell Co., 1944, pp. 103-104.)

Anthropologists in particular, but archaeologists and other scientists as well, freely use figures of high magnitude in estimating the age of life upon the earth, running anywhere from thousands to millions of years into the past. Much of the dating has been reached through the use of the radiocarbon method, which has been considered reliable for years by some scientists but which has been questioned repeatedly by others. Now comes a United Press International news release forcefully challenging the accuracy of that method for any period beyond 2,000 years B.C. The news article reads:

"Berrien Springs, Mich. (UPI) — A widely accepted method of determining the age of various sorts of life on earth back to 50,000 B.C. may be way off the mark for objects more than 4,000 years old, a physicist contends.

"Robert Brown, in a paper challenging the validity of the radiocarbon dating method, said he believes life on earth began about 5,000 B.C.—roughly the time some Bible scholars say the earth was created.

"Brown, director of the Geoscience Research Institute of Andrews University here, said the technique for determining the age of dead organisms has proven fairly accurate back to 2000 B.C.

"But, he said, data compiled during his 10-year study of the method suggests radioactive carbon atoms did not exist in the earth's atmosphere in measurable amounts before 2000 B.C., and therefore cannot be used to date objects prior to that time.

"Brown said he began his research with an initial skepticism of radiocarbon dating based on his belief in the Biblical accounts of creation and the universal flood.

"`All we had in the past was speculation, which is the last desperate attempt of a believer to retain his faith without making it appear that he has turned his brain off,' he said.

"The radiocarbon method, developed shortly after World War II, involves measuring the radioactivity given off by the isotope carbon-14, which is produced in the air by cosmic rays striking air molecules and is absorbed by all living organisms.

"But, Brown said, rather than indicating a long period of radioactive decay, low radiocarbon levels could simply indicate some organisms started out with fewer radiocarbons.

"Conditions such as temperature of the planet and geomagnetic and solar magnetic fields belting the globe have altered atmospheric radiocarbons, causing carbon-14 dates to differ from real time, he said.

"At some point in time, he said, there were no radiocarbons in the atmosphere. Then, sometime before 2000 B.C., a major atmospheric change likely occurred resulting in a buildup of carbon-14 in the atmosphere over several centuries." (Deseret News, January 2, 1976.)

The history of the radiocarbon "time clock" is an interesting one. It was discovered by Dr. W. F. Libby, who received a Nobel prize for his work. As explained by Dr. Melvin A. Cook and M. Garfield Cook in their book Science and Mormonism, this "most reliable of all radioactive time clocks has been widely accepted in spite of a weakness recognized in the early days of its development by Dr. Libby himself. . . . Because it would take only about 30,000 years for radiocarbon to come close enough to overall equilibrium in the earth that an unbalance could not be detected experimentally, Dr. Libby chose to reject this evidence on the basis of what he considered to be common knowledge that the earth is not merely more than 30,000 years old but even billions of years old. One must have great faith in his theory to ignore experimental data in order to retain it. Dr. Libby adopted the equilibrium model to read his radioactive time clock; the evidence indicates that he should have adopted a nonequilibrium model in order to be consistent with the observed data and the other postulates of his radiocarbon model. Had he adopted the nonequilibrium model his method could still easily have been applied (and with relatively small differences for ages no greater than 4,000 years). However, it would have dated the whole atmosphere of the earth at roughly 10,000 years of age." (Science and Mormonism, 1967, p. 166.)

What a sweeping rejection this would have been to all the conjectured dates on the origin of life, which some would put back into millions of years!

It should be remembered that even the evolutionists admit that their evidence is largely conjectural, and that they deal in vast periods of time in which a million or two years seem to make little, if any, difference.

A recent edition of Atlas of Ancient Archaeology, for example, reads: "No one who reads newpapers can fail to know that there is now convincing evidence that the first steps in human evolution (the emergence of the hominid family) took place in Africa south of the Sahara. It seems that between four and three million years ago when the warm climate of the Pliocene Age was giving way to the much colder Pleistocene, primates in sub-Saharan Africa were evolving into the earliest `men' or hominids."

The volume then describes the homo habilis, an offshoot of the hominids, which was "a little fellow averaging about four feet in height, but had a relatively large brain of about 700 cc, and is thought to have dominated, perhaps hunted and eaten, the surviving Australopithecines." (McGraw-Hill, 1975, pp. 7-8.) How could anyone know?

Note that "it is thought" that they did thus and so. This admission corresponds with another on the opposite page of this same book, in which the author admits "so little do we know," and "yet so uncertain is the evidence."

The endless evolutionary voyages into the seas of speculation certainly cannot be allowed to destroy our faith in divine revelation, which revelation completely refutes these hypotheses.

It should be remembered that just as there are many varying views on religion among the numerous churches, so there are also equally varying views among scientists.

It is a mistake to assume that there is one science, one united explanation for the origin of life, the origin of man, or the origin of the universe, for it just simply is not so.

There are imaginative researchers in science as there are in bibliology, and they do not all come up with the same answers. The very divergence of opinion among the researchers, anthropologists as well as others, is evidence in itself that there is no common ground on these matters among the scientists, earnest as they may be.

It is said to their credit that as honest men, they do adjust their thinking as new evidence presents itself. This, too, indicates that all have not yet found the final answer to man's origin nor to the beginning of life in any other field, although many, as above indicated, believe in the divine creation.

Since we have the sure word of revelation to guide us concerning creation, shall we exchange it for unproven hypotheses?

Shall we exchange solid truth for speculation?

God lives. Adam was the first man. He fell to provide mortality. Christ is God's Only Begotten Son. He died to give us resurrection and redemption.


(Mark E. Petersen, Adam: Who Is He? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 42 - 51.)



Make a free website with Yola