On February 15th and 16th, 1940, 1 had a privilege which has not been accorded to any other lawyer in the United States, as far as I know, of being in court on behalf of a defendant in an action brought by atheists to prove that the Bible is unscientific and, therefore, untrue.
No civil court has jurisdiction to try such a case. Nevertheless, the case was tried before Justice Benjamin Shalleck in Part 29, First District, of the Municipal Court of the City of New York. The celebrated and so-called "Monkey Trial" which occurred in Dayton, Tenn. in 1925 was for the purpose of determining whether Prof. Scopes had committed a misdemeanor by teaching evolution as a fact in a school supported by State funds. He admitted that he did and was found guilty. His eminent counsel, Clarence Darrow, tried to justify his act by pointing out alleged errors in the Bible, which was defended by William Jennings Bryan. But the issue in the case was not whether or not the Bible was wrong, but whether it was a breach of the law to teach evolution in the State of Tennessee in a tax supported school.
In our case, however, the direct question was an attempt on the part of atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers to prove that the Bible is unscientific and the burden of proof rested entirely on them.
An advertisement had appeared in the Herald Tribune to the effect that Dr. Harry Rimmer, the well-known Presbyterian minister who is President of the Research Science Bureau and author of many books on religion and science, had offered $1,000 to any one who could prove a scientific error in the Bible.
A free-thinker named William Floyd.editor of a small atheistic magazine called "The Arbitrator," and a member of the First Humanist Church in New York City, saw the advertisement and wrote to Dr. Rimmer stating that the Bible was full of errors, and mentioned four or five alleged errors. He then asked that on the strength of this statement Dr. Rimmer send him a check for the $1,000. Now Dr. Rimmer is half Scotch, and anyone who thinks that he can write a letter to a man who is even only half Scotch and get a check for $1,000 by return mail is a free-thinker, and so it proved. Dr. Rimmer did not send the check by return mail. In fact, I doubt if he had read the letter when the next day he was served with a Summons and Complaint by the same William Floyd, who claimed that he was aggrieved and that Dr. Rimmer owed him $1,000 as a result of the advertisement. Of course, it turned out later that Dr. Rimmer had not put the advertisement in the paper and knew nothing about it. The case, which was begun in November, came to trial the following February.
The Judge, a Hebrew in his thirties, was a very bright lawyer and good judge. He said that there was a possibility that the advertisement made a contract and the failure to send the check might be called a breach of contract. and on that ground he would try the case. and all that would be necessary for the plaintiff to do was to prove that the Bible was unscientific and he would be entitled to a judgment for $1,000.
I did not have to defend the Bible, neither did I defend Dr. Harry Rimmer. I was merely the attorney for the defendants and it was my business to see that the plaintiff obeyed all the rules of evidence in submitting his proof because 1 was perfectly sure that there was no living person who could prove the allegations of the Complaint.
During the preparation for the trial the plaintiff served fifty-three claims of scientific errors in the Bible, but. for the purpose of the trial, these were boiled down to eight, described the Complaint. All the plaintiff had to do was to prove any one of them to be entitled to a judgment, according to the ruling of the judge, provided, of course, the plaintiff could prove that Dr. Rimmer had made the offer and the plaintiff had complied with the terms of the offer.
The eight points were very simple. Briefly they were:
1. That the Bible claims that God created the earth in six days, while everybody knows that the Universe was produced through many million years of evolution, which is proven by many branches of science.
2. That the first chapter of Genesis says that the beasts were created first, and the second chapter says that man was created first, and that there is a contradiction; therefore, one must be wrong. If it isn't true. then it isn't scientific.
3. That the ark was too small to hold the animals said to have entered it.
4. That when the children of Israel asked for flesh God sent them quail, and the accounts of the quail given in Numbers 11:31-35 and in Exodus 16:13 set forth a statement of alleged facts utterly ridiculous and impossible and, therefore, so unscientific that no one but a fundamentalist would believe it.
5. That the sixth chapter of Genesis says that the animals went into the ark by twos and the seventh chapter says they went in by sevens. Therefore there is a contradiction, and one is wrong, and unscientific.
6. That the eleventh chapter of Leviticus says that the camel chews a cud and divideth not the hoof, while everybody knows that he does divide the hoof and does not chew a cud; so the Bible is wrong.
7. That Leviticus 11:5 says that the coney chews a cud, but the coney is only a jack- rabbit and does not chew a cud.
8. That Leviticus 11:6 says that the hare chews a cud and the hare is only a little rabbit and a rabbit does not chew a cud.
These were the eight points and the lawyer for the plaintiff said that the Judge ought to take judicial knowledge that the Bible was wrong in all these respects because everybody knows them to be wrong. The Judge said that he was not taking judicial knowledge of any-thing about the Bible, and in court everybody did not know anything. It would be necessary that the plaintiff put on his witnesses and prove his case, and if everyone knew these things it ought not to be hard to get plenty of witnesses. The attorney said that he was well able to prove his contention and called as his first witness the plaintiff William Floyd.
All Mr. Floyd testified to was that he was the plaintiff; he had seen the advertisement in the newspaper; he had written Dr. Rimmer and later, feeling aggrieved in not receiving any answer, had brought this suit for $1,000. He had asked Dr. Rimmer if he put the advertisement in the paper. Dr. Rimmer told him he had not and knew nothing about it, nor who had put it in. As he did not think that Dr. Rimmer told the truth the plaintiff was maintaining the suit against him in the one hope of showing that the Bible is not scientific. He did not try to prove anything about evolution or any of the other points, but contented himself with testifying that he was a direct descendant of William Floyd, who signed the Declaration of Independence. (Just what that had to do with this present case was not made plain.) 1 did not ask him any questions in cross- examination because he had not testified to anything important relating to the case.
The next witness was Rabbi Baruch Braunstein, who said that he had graduated from the Jewish Institute of Religion in 1930 and, therefore, had been out of the Seminary for ten years. Why they ever let him out at all was not made clear, because he did not give any evidence of any knowledge of the contents of the Bible, or of any science relating to the Bible. He testified that he had studied the Bible in the Hebrew text, that he could not boast to be an authority on any of the sciences relating to the Bible, but he had some definite opinions. He admitted that he had not made any personal research in astronomy, geology, anthropology, archeology or paleontology, or ostology or cosmology. In fact, the court asked him all of the ologies except the doxology, but inasmuch as he had made no personal research, he had no first-hand information of any of these sciences insofar as they related to the creation of the world.
Nevertheless, the atheist lawyer asked whether the account of creation in Genesis and the other books attributed to Moses were in accord with modem scientific knowledge. Of course I objected, and the Judge sustained the objection, because that is not the way to ask questions. They should have asked him to read in the record what the Bible said about creation, not only in the Pentateuch but in the other eleven books in the Bible which referred to it, but the atheists with their usual ignorance did not seem to know that the act of creation was described in any book except Genesis. Then they should have asked him to testify, if he could, as to the fact of creation universally accepted by scientists and duly accredited by scientific societies and proven by an abundance of documentary and other evidence, if there is any such fact. Of course there isn't any such fact of science because the scientists are just as much in disagreement about their theories of evolution as the religionists are about the diversities of the cults and denominations. I have understood that there are about twenty different varieties of evolution alone, to say nothing of the other theories of creation.
Notwithstanding the plain statement of the Judge that they could not ask questions in that way, the atheist lawyer asked him: "Well. isn't it a scientific fact that the earth was not created in six days?" I objected to that and the Judge sustained the objection. The atheist lawyer asked practically the same question of every witness and every time the Judge said he must not ask the question in that way, but he kept right on. It is my experience that atheists never learn. If they did learn they would cease to be atheists. Again the atheist lawyer said that the Judge should take judicial knowledge of the fact that creation, as stated in the Bible, was completely wrong. The Judge replied: "I cannot go back that far." The Judge seemed to think, and properly so, that the plaintiff would need some witnesses who were present when creation occurred to be proper witnesses.
The Rabbi admitted that he was not present at the time of creation, so the Judge asked him why he came to court. He said he came to show what the Bible said. The Judge made it plain that he did not have to show that, because we had a Bible and we could read it, explaining, "I am not concerned with Biblical criticism of this case. I am concerned only with this, that you allege that there was a scientific error in the Bible... You are disproving the claim that there is no scientific error in the Bible."
The Rabbi wanted to make a statement but the Judge would not let him because courts are not places where you make statements, but where you deal in facts. Finally, however, the Judge let him make a statement in which he claimed that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, but it was a combination of documents produced by three groups of witnesses: the Elohists or the"E" group, or code; the Jehovist or "J" code; and the priestly or "P" code. These three codes were taken by some other group which compiled and edited them. These codes, he said, were all made up of traditions and theories of those people living way back there, who were trying to make a background for the Hebrew race. In a discussion with the Judge the witness admitted that he did not know anyone who belonged to any of the E, J, or P groups, and he did not know when or where they lived, and, furthermore, no one knew anything about them. He also admitted that none of the men of those groups were in court. So the Judge said that he guessed he would stick to Moses as the proof about the codes seemed to be quite indefinite. The Judge explained that while it was possible that the Hebrew fathers, who might have belonged to those groups, might have been guessing. nevertheless, he thought that the Rabbi was doing a good deal of guessing himself.
They also asked the Rabbi about the alleged contradiction between the first and second chapters of Genesis, the question being – "can you tell whether animals were created before man, or man before animals, from your study of the Bible?" He answered: "I would prefer not to answer because I do not feel competent to answer." He also admitted in the discussion that the first chapter of Genesis is a chronology and the second chapter of Genesis is a summary of some of the events mentioned in the first chapter but that it is never permissible to compare a summary with a chronology, and, therefore, you cannot compare the first and second chapters, so there was nothing wrong. The Judge said that we would skip that second point. We did, and never went back to it.
The atheist lawyer asked him if he knew how large the ark was. He said it was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. Then he asked him whether he knew how large a cubit was. He said it was the length of the forearm and varied from 17.6 to 20.7 inches.
I then asked him if he knew how large Noah's cubit was. He said that he did not know how large Noah's was. Well, if he did not know how long Noah's cubit was, then he could not tell the dimensions of the ark; and then he, of course, could not say it was too small to hold the animals. The Judge said we would skip it.
It is well to remember that the sixth chapter of Genesis says that there were giants in those days, and Noah might have been ten or twelve feet high. He might have had a four foot cubit and the ark might have been 1200 feet long, 200 feet wide and 120 feet high, and being rectangular, without pointed bow or rounded stem or curved bottom and without machinery it would have had plenty of room. But the ark was skipped. It was sunk without a trace, as far as the trial was concerned, and no other witness ever referred to it again.
Then they asked the Rabbi about the alleged contradiction in the sixth and seventh chapters of Genesis, and 1 had him read from the seventh chapter: "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of the beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." The atheist lawyer contended that was a scientific error, but the Hebrew Judge contended that the Jews had clean and unclean animals and he could not see anything wrong in the Biblical statement. He said, "I cannot see anything inconsistent in those two chapters." Then he asked the Rabbi and the Rabbi, although he was a witness for the plaintiff, agreed with the Judge. I asked the Rabbi how many clean kinds of animals there were mentioned in the Bible. He agreed that there were about ten, so it would not make very much difference as to the number of animals in the ark. The Judge said the basic number was two, but for these special clean animals it was seven, and the Rabbi admitted that the clean animals went into the ark so that Noah could offer the extra animals as sacrifice, when the flood was over.
They next asked the Rabbi about the camel chewing a cud, or dividing the hoof. The Rabbi said the camel did not chew a cud, but the Judge disagreed with him because the Judge had been to a circus himself and had seen a camel chew a cud. The Judge said that there was no need of guessing about it, that if you asked one hundred people if a camel chewed a cud and half said "yes" and half said "no." nevertheless, the camel would go right on chewing a cud; that in court they did not want opinions, they wanted facts. So we skipped the camel chewing the cud.
They asked the Rabbi whether the camel's hoof was divided or undivided, and the Judge said they had better not ask him about this because he guessed wrong.
Then they asked the Rabbi if he knew how long a day's journey was. This was in preparation for the allegation about the quail, because the Bible says that the quail flew a day's journey on either side of the camp, but the discussion got all mixed up at this point and the Rabbi never did answer, except that he said he thought it was about twenty miles. He said nothing more about the quail, nor did anyone else, except that the Judge asked them if they were going to skip the quail. Apparently they decided to because there was not a single feather which fluttered or a wing which flopped. It was evident that they had put the quail story in the Complaint just for the purpose of ridiculing the Bible, and it was for the gullible ignorant public rather than the court. They claimed that there were 2,992 square miles of quail, 44 inches high, surrounding the camp, and that 2,000,000 children of Israel had to go out there and pick up 85 quail a second and after 36 hours of this hard work, each of the children of Israel had to drag 2,000,085 quail home with him as his share. They said the whole story was so preposterous that no one but a fundamentalist would believe it. This merely demonstrates the way they read the Bible, because the account in the 11th chapter of Numbers merely says that the quail flew in from Egypt across the Red Sea and, when they came to the camp, as normal quail would do, rather than fly right into the midst of the camp, they divided and flew to either side of the camp. The quail has a heavy body and small wings and flies low. Furthermore, these quail were probably tired from their long journey. The Bible says that they flew about two cubits high above the face of the earth, meaning three or four, feet, where they could be knocked down with sticks, caught in nets, hit with stones, arrows and spears, and maybe caught with the hand, and that is all there is to the story. From the Complaint the atheists seemed to think that when the first quail got to the camp he fell dead. The next one came along and said, "Move over Bill, this is where I belong," and fell dead. The other quail did the same thing, closely packed in, until they formed this ring 56 miles wide and 44 inches high, all around the camp. When a man is a free-thinker he certainly thinks freely. No one but a free-thinker could make such a preposterous story out of Numbers 11:31, 32.
Inasmuch as the Rabbi had not testified to anything in favor of the plaintiff, I did not cross-examine him. During his examination I had been permitted to ask him questions which had a better effect than a cross-examination because they destroyed his direct examination.
The next witness was Dr. John Haynes Holmes, who said that he was a minister of the Gospel, but did not explain what Gospel. He is pastor of the Community Church in New York City, which meets in the Town Hall, and is building a new church building at 35th and Park Avenue, Manhattan. He said that he was quite familiar with astronomy, geology and the other sciences which bear upon the creation of the world. Again the atheist lawyer asked him: "Referring to the statements in the first chapter of Genesis that the world was created in six days, that it was evolved in countless ages, what is the fact." Of course I objected, and the objection was sustained. The Judge asked him if he made a special study of the science of creation. He said that he knew what the scientists' thought because he had read their books, but the Judge said, "He is not using his own mind but is using the mind of another scientist and the objection must be sustained." He said that he had read the works of Darwin and most of the scientific books of the nineteenth century, which indicates that he is still a century behind, and he did not explain why he had not read any of the twentieth century books. When he was asked to name the books which he had read, he could remember some by Lyall, Darwin and Huxley, but he could not remember the others, except Agassiz. He admitted finally that he could not speak as a scientist and he could only tell what other scientists think. It was his conclusion that the earth came into its present form by a long process of evolution, running through many, many millions of years, and "I do not believe there is a scientist alive who believes the Genesis story of creation."
I moved to strike the answer out, and the Judge struck it out because, in a discussion off the record. Dr. Holmes admitted he did not know how many scientists there are in the world. He was personally acquainted with a few, none of whom were in court. No scientist had authorized him to state for him in Court that he did not believe the Genesis story of creation. It was quite apparent that he was not qualified to speak for all of the scientists in the world, or for any one of them.
He said that, in his opinion, the statements in the first and second chapters of Genesis regarding creation of the world and man were not scientifically true, but, of course, that was only his opinion. I asked him one question: "Dr. Holmes do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice?" His answer was very definite. He said, "Of course not. Certainly not," That is all I asked him. It did not seem to be necessary to ask him anything more. He had not added anything to the plaintiff's case, but he had made a perfectly plain statement that he, a minister of the Gospel, did not believe the Bible to be the Word of God.
The next witness was Dr. Charles Francis Potter, who said that he was pastor of the First Humanist Church in New York City, having originally been a Unitarian minister. He said that he had studied certain of the "ologies." had written books on the subject of creation and made addresses on scientific subjects. He was one of the Bible experts in the so-called "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925, and the atheist lawyer, thinking that Dr. Potter was qualified as a scientist, asked him: "Is it true that the earth was created in six days?" Again the Judge sustained my objection, that that is not the proper way to prove the point. He admitted that he was not here when the earth was created. He said that he had read an enormous number of books on the sciences relating to evolution, so the Judge asked him to give a list of the names of these books. All he could remember were Darwin and Sir James Jeans. The others were regular text books which he studied in college. He finally got in the record that he thought that the first chapters of Genesis were pure fable. He also said that the Rabbi was wrong about the "J" group, "E" and "P" groups because there was another group, the "D" group, which wrote the Deuteronomic doctrine, but, of course, he did not know who those people were, where they lived, or when they did it, and, of course, none of them were in court to speak for themselves.
Also, he did not believe there was any flood in the time of Noah. He admitted that there might have been little local floods but no big, general flood, and he was so positive about it that the Judge asked him if he was there at the time. He said that you did not have to be present to know things. He asserted that he believed George Washington was born in 1732 and he was not there at the time. The Judge said he believed it too, and he was not there, but that was a well authenticated and duly accredited fact of history sustained by many ancient documents and accepted by all historians. He asked the witness if he had any evidence like that to show there wasn't a flood in Noah's time, and, of course, he replied that he did not have any such evidence. I asked him if he believed there was a God and he said that he did not know. He thought that "God is merely an idea of men's minds — God was made in man's image rather than man being made in God's image." He said that so far as God was concerned he was an agnostic. I have only a very little knowledge of Greek but I know that "agnosticos" means "without knowledge." In Latin it is "ignoramus," and in English it is just plain "ignorant," so when the witness admitted that he was ignorant he was no longer qualified to be a witness, and we let him go. He had not added anything to the plaintiff's case except the unsupported conclusions of an admittedly ignorant man.
CHAPTER II
When the case was resumed the next morning, the plaintiff produced as a witness Mr. Woolsey Teller, who testified that he is the Vice-President of the American Society for the Advancement of Atheism, and Associate Editor of "The Truth Seeker," a monthly magazine of that Society.
The plaintiff certainly had a swell bunch of anti-Bible witnesses,- himself a free-thinker; then a liberal-minded Rabbi, who, although a Jew, did not believe that Moses had written the books of Moses which are the basis of the Jewish religion; two clergymen, neither of whom would admit that the Bible is the Word of God, and one of whom admitted that he was an agnostic, as he did not really think that there is any God. He is organizer and pastor of the First Humanist Church. He also admitted that he had not contacted God in any way, which indicated that he had never prayed to God. Now comes this fifth witness, vice-president of an atheist society. The lawyer was an atheist about seventy-one years old who told me that for forty years he had been fighting the Bible and God. He said he knew there was no God and never had been a God; yet he had been fighting this non-existent Person for forty years. Being an atheist, of course, he could not see the incongruity of this statement, and yet he called himself a scientist. These seem to be the only kind of witnesses you can get against the Bible. Any one who studies and believes the Bible would not be a witness against it. The attorney said that he had tried to get witnesses from the American Museum of Natural History of New York City, the Smithsonian Institute of Washington and various colleges, but all had refused to come. He did not say why, but I imagine it was because they knew that while they had their theories, they could not produce any facts, such as the court would require. They could express opinions, but could not prove them by any form of evidence acceptable to a court.
At one time during the proceedings the Judge explained to a witness that in his own pulpit or on the lecture platform he could say anything he wanted to, but in a court he must stick to facts and tell the truth. This is a terrible handicap to any man who is trying to prove there is no God, the Bible is not true and evolution is a fact.
Mr. Teller said that he was a self-taught scientist and he believed that most of the greatest scientists were self-taught. He did not explain who the others were besides himself. He said that he was recognized among other scientific persons as a scientist, and he had many letters to prove it, but the Judge interrupted his statements of qualifications to say: "Do not let your ego get the better of you." The Judge said that he would permit him to testify and take his testimony for what it might be worth. At the end of the trial the Judge indicated that the testimony given was not worth anything at all.
There were 179 typed pages of the official record, being 25 lines to the page, and the testimony of Mr. Teller actually covered about eighty pages.
He claimed that for thirty years he had been in touch with Technological works and was familiar with all of them, but he only mentioned Sir James Jeans, Dr. Eddington, Charles Darwin, Sir Arthur Keith and J. Elliott Smith. The Judge remarked that reading four books did not make a man a scientist. It was pointed out also that some of the books which he mentioned were books on popular science, written for highschool students and others who did not have time to delve into the real facts. In general he testified that the earth was 2,000,000,000 years old. He said that was not a guess, but "it is formulated from the results of radio activities which go on and also the geological strata."
I asked him if he was sure of the age. He said he was. I asked him if he thought next year would be 2,000,000,001 years, but he said that he could not be quite as accurate as that. With a little coaxing, however, he threw off a million years, and the Judge asked him if he could not throw off another million for him, but he refused to throw off even another year for anybody, indicating that apparently he had the right to add or subtract to the ages as he chose.
He stated that the main proof of the age of the earth was in the record of the rocks. When I asked him how he could tell that, he said the age of a rock was told by the fossils which were in it, and, of course, if there were no fossils in the rock they were just out of luck. Later he said that animal life was on the earth 300,000,000 years and human life 300,000 years. This left a great gap between, when evolution began from nothing and the first possibility of a fossil which came with the advent of animals. So there never could have been a fossil during 1,700,000,000 years, or most of the two thousand million years. Apparently the witness had never thought of the effect of this on determining the age of the rocks. He said that when you look in a rock and find a fossil, if the fossil is of a simple cellular structure, you know it is an ancient fossil, but if it is a fossil with complex cellular structure it is a modern fossil. I thought he must be a modern fossil because it is very common knowledge that there are as many living creatures with simple cellular structure today as there ever were, and most all present-day scientists have completely discredited the theory of the record of the rocks.
Pressing a little closer, however, he said that his theory is that "two stars passing within close distances of each other, the larger one drew off a film from the smaller star and that film condensed and in the condensation the planets were formed and one of these planets is the Earth. That is the way it arose." Of course I knew he was wrong, because if a big magnet drew an object from a little magnet, that object would go and adhere to the big magnet. It would not explode in the air into a number of different pieces.
I asked him where the stars came from. He said they were thrown off the sun like mud from a revolving wheel. I asked him where the sun came from and he said it came from a great central nebula. I asked him where the nebula came from and he said it came from the condensation of ether. I asked him where the ether came from and he said it was always there, and did not come from any place, so he thus admitted that he had an effect without a cause, which, of course, is impossible. It was perfectly apparent that he did not have the slightest idea of what he was talking about.
Furthermore, his first theory was that the earth was produced through two thousand million years of evolution, starting from nothing. Then he testified that it came from ether, which was always there. So he had two theories of the formation of the earth, each of which flatly contradict the other, but he was too much of an atheist to see the absurdity of his position.
I asked him if he had not read a bulletin from the Scientific Department of Harvard College a few months before the trial, in which it was held as a scientific fact that the earth was only twenty million years old. He said that he had read the bulletin, but had disagreed with its conclusions. I had just made it up. I had never heard of any such bulletin, but thought I would ask the witness the question just to see what he would say. He admitted that he had read it, so I knew that he was relying upon his imagination and was not proceeding in a scientific manner.
I asked him if my watch could evolve in two thousand million years; that is, could various metals form themselves into wheels, nuts, bolts and springs and assemble themselves in a case and tick and keep time according to the Meridian of Greenwich? He said it was ridiculous. I asked him why it was ridiculous. If the whole universe evolved, why could not the watch? He said that metal substances do not evolve.
He was asked if the universe was not basically metal. He said it was, but that was different. I asked him if his body did not evolve. He said it did. I asked him if his body was more complicated than a watch. He agreed that it was infinitely more so. Then I asked him if the body was metallic, having been formed from the dust of the ground. He said not; that was merely another mistake which the Bible made.
The lawyer jumped up and said his body was not made of dust but of slime. I asked him if slime was not a mixture of water and dust. He admitted it, and added that his body was two-thirds water. I said, "I will admit that and go even farther and admit that you are all wet. Nevertheless I thought that he must have some solid parts, even if it was only from the neck up, and I asked him what would happen if his body was submerged in chemicals and subjected to great heat and pressure. He said it would turn to gas. I admitted that also. I asked him what would happen if the watch was treated the same way and he said it would turn into gas. Then I pointed out that here we had two hunks of gas, a large one which was himself, and a smaller hunk which was the watch, and if the large hunk evolved and produced his body, why could not the smaller hunk evolve and produce the watch? He stuck to the statement that the watch was metal and could not evolve.
Mr. Teller was asked if he still believed in evolution. He said that he did. I asked him what other scientists believed in evolution. To his knowledge, he said. Dr. Henry Fairfield Osbourn, who had been president of the Board of Trustees of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
I asked him if he remembered seeing a few years ago in a newspaper a story of a bone being found in Kansas or Nebraska, which was sent to Dr. Osboum to be analyzed and he was reported to have said it was part of the missing link between animal and man. He said that he remembered it. He said he also remembered what happened later, that it was found to be a tooth from a hog, which had not been so long dead, and, therefore, was not part of the missing link at all. I asked him if this didn't show that scientists could be mistaken. "Certainly," he said, "scientists make mistakes, but they always were willing to and did acknowledge them, while fundamentalists never acknowledged theirs."
In spite of all the mistakes of scientists, did he still believe in evolution? He said that he did, and that I myself was a result of evolution, having descended from a monkey. I objected, and asked the judge to make the witness stick to his own ancestors and leave mine alone, whereupon the court admonished the witness and told him to stick to his own ancestors in testifying and again told him not to let his ego get away with him. I asked him why he said that man was descended from a monkey. He explained that it was because the skeleton of man showed certain additional bones at the end of the spinal column which were a rudimentary tail, and inasmuch as a monkey had a tail and man had a rudimentary tail, it was apparent that a man was evolved from a monkey. The joke, however, is on the witness, because any one who has been at a menagerie knows that the big monkeys, like the gorilla, orangoutang and chimpanzee do not have tails, and if he is going to hang his theory of evolution on a tail he should use some animal which always has a tail for an ancestor. I would think for an evolutionary ancestor a donkey would be a good selection because he always has a tail and other characteristics of stubbornness and blindness to facts which would be suitable for an atheist.
Going back to the age of the world, he said that the dinosaurus was always found in the same strata of rock. That sounded good for Dinny, so I asked him what strata it was. He thought it was the Triassic age, but his lawyer insisted it was the Jurassic. I then asked him where the ichthyosaurus was found. He said that he did not know. I also asked him where the megatherium and the pterodactyl were found, but again he did not know. I asked him if these were always found in the same strata. He said they were; that was the way you knew how old the rocks were. I then asked him:
Q. "Isn't it a fact that the fossil trilobites are found in several of these rocks in several different ages?"
A. "Yes. You have the disturbance of the earth as I explained that the whole strata was over-turned."
Q. "Have you not lost track of the age of those particular rocks?"
A. "That is right."
By this he admitted that the trilobites were found in several different strata, but it was all news to me. All I knew about trilobites was that when I was in high school I went out with the professor and some other scholars in the Appalachian shale in the Blue Ridge mountains and we found some things which the professor said were traces oftrilobite fossils. I knew nothing about their being in any other strata but I had learned on the trial, that if I pointed my finger at a witness and said "Don't you know?" and then said something which sounded scientific. he usually agreed with me.
I also asked the witness if he could give me any evidence of evolution. He said that he could, so both the judge and I urged him to do so because, personally, I have been looking in vain for evidence of this for forty years and more. He said that thousands of years ago the canary bird was a drab and bedraggled bird, and today, having passed through centuries of evolution, it had beautiful plumage. I told him that this was not evolution; it was merely a development of the theory of Mendel by which varieties of species are developed in the course of time. What I wanted explained was evolution. If the canary one thousand years ago was today a horse, or some other animal, that would be evolution. He said that such development would be utterly ridiculous. I agreed with him that I thought all theories of evolution were ridiculous. What he had given was a development of a variety within a species, but what the court wanted as evidence was the transmutation of one species into another species. I asked him if he could give an example of that. He said that he could. He then explained that hundreds of years ago the negroid race had come to this country from Africa and through evolution we now have the mulatto. Almost every one in the courtroom snickered at this statement, and the judge pointed out that the negroid was a man and the mulatto was still a man and there has been no transmutation of species. I commented to the effect that if the negroid of hundreds of years ago was today a camel, or vice versa, that would be evolution, but he said that was absurd and such things never happened.
I asked him if he still believed in evoluion and he said he did. I then asked him why he could not offer some proof; he explained that evolution was an extremely slow process, taking millions of years, and each element in the process was so minute that compared with the life of an individual man, no man could actually see evolution at work, but he was sure that it was the greatest force on earth today and was still operating.
I asked him if he had heard of the Venus de Milo. He said that it was a statue. I reminded him that the sculptor must have had a model who must have been one of the young women living at that time, and he admitted that this was undoubtedly true. I asked him if he did not know that this statue dated back at least one thousand years before Christ. He agreed with me, although I guess no one knows the exact date, but he admitted that it was at least three thousand years ago. Then I asked him how the perfection of the measurements and symmetry of the body of the Venus de Milo compared with the measurements of the average woman of today, and he said that he believed that the perfection of the Venus de Milo was far superior to the present-day women - whereupon the judge said, "You have a nerve to say that with this courtroom half-full of women." I asked him if the perfection of a woman's body had deteriorated in three thousand years, where was there any evidence of evolution, and his reply startled me, because he said, "Women do not evolve." I imagine that he classifies women with metallic objects, of which he also said there was no evolution.
The witness said that he had seen evolution portrayed in the Army Medical Museum adjoining the Smithsonian grounds in Washington where they had an embryo development all illustrated by objects. I asked him if they were the original embryo and at first he said "Yes," but finally admitted that they were not the originals but were made of some plastic to illustrate the theory of Dr. Gregory, who had made the various items.
"But they are not actually items of evolution?" I asked.
"Oh, no." I wish it would be made plain to all the school children who are taken to the mseum to see these exhibits that none of them are real, but are made by man as in his opinion hey think evolution might have occurred. I am afraid that too often children are given the ipression that what they see are actual illustrations of truth instead of unsupported theory.
I asked him if man had a Maker, and he said that he did not believe so. I asked him if my watch had a maker. "Of course," he replied, and I asked him to look round the room and see if there was a single object that did not have a maker. He said everything had a maker, and everything had a purpose for which it was made. I pointed out to him that he was wrong, but he said he was sure everything had a maker. I then said, "Everything but you. You had no Maker, you are merely the product of evolution." He admitted that that was his idea, but evidently he did not see how ridiculous it sounded.
In answering my question as to how many different theories of evolution there were, he said that he did not know, but that there were several theories and modifications of theories. When I asked him if he had studied etymology, he said that he had. He said that it was a study of the origin of the human race. As a matter of fact, of course, etymology treats of the origin and derivation of words, but that is a small difference to some scientists. He said that there was a dispute whether the human race originated in Asia or Africa, and that some think through the process of evolution men appeared on various parts of the earth at various times. Some think that evolution came through an individual in one place and others that there was not any individual, but, evolution being gradual, various types of men sprang up all over the earth in a simultaneous origin. He said that as to himself, "I have no opinion on it because to me that particular point is something which cannot, from a scientific viewpoint, be definitely settled." So I asked him if evolution was a fixed science. He said that it was, but not as to that particular conclusion, but that it is fixed that man actually evolved from a lower animal, but where or when or how were still theoretical.
Of course, it seemed to me quite foolish to come to a final conclusion as to evolution itself without having any conclusion as to any of the methods or agencies or byways that lead to it.
He also said that evolution did not apply to al! species because all species did not change, but some remained as they originally were. He did not explain which they were, however.
I asked the witness if he believed in a God. He said he did not. I asked him if he believed in a heaven, hell or angels or life after death, and he said that he did not believe in any of those things. He thought they were ail fairy stones, and then to clap the climax he said he did not believe in fairies.
Inasmuch as the witness admitted that he could not offer any proof of evolution we finally dropped the subject, because after all the burden of the proof was laid upon plaintiff to prove evolution and this witness definitely admitted that he could not prove it.
Chapter III
Attempting To Dispose of The Scriptures
As the plaintiff's whole contention was that the earth was produced by evolution through many millions of years, as is proven by many branches of science, and as the plaintiff's only scientific witness admitted that he could not prove evolution, then, of course, that part of their case was ended, and failed for want of proof, as it was sure to do.
But the Complaint also said that the Bible was wrong because it stated that God created the earth in six days. So I handed the witness a Bible and said, "Show me where the Bible says that God created the earth in six days." The atheist lawyer made considerable objection, insisting that it was common knowledge that the Bible taught that God had created the earth in six days, but the Judge said, "You better quote what the Bible says." We had quite a discussion as to what was the meaning of a "day" whether it was twenty-four hours or a geological period, but I told the court that I was not interested in that, but what I wanted was for them to show me where the Bible said that God created the earth in six days.
The atheist lawyer read. Genesis 1:31: And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
But I called the Judge's attention to the fact that it said "made" and not "created." The Court agreed with me that he must stick to creation. So the lawyer read from Genesis 2: Thus the heavens and earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And then he offered the fourth commandment: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...
The Judge ruled these out and said that he must first find where it said "created." The atheist lawyer said that science does not recognize any difference between the words "create" and "made" because those two words involve a making, somebody did make something or create something. His opinion was that they were synonymous and interchangeable.
Off the record I asked him if his wife could make a cake and he said, "Yes, very good cake." I then asked him if she could create the ingredients of the cake. Could she go into the kitchen and say "Zip" and behold she would have flour, and "Zip" and have chocolate. He said no, that was ridiculous. Nobody could do that. Then I said: "You do admit that there is a difference between create and make?" "Sure." he replied, "if you are going to look at it that way." "That's the way we are looking at it." announced the judge. The lawyer, however, could not find any place in the Bible where it said that the Lord "created" the earth in six days and again the Judge turned to me and said, "On the level, Bennet, does it say it anywhere?" I then had the opportunity of showing what the Bible really teaches. We had a kind of a Bible class, most of which was off the record. I read the first statement in the Bible: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. I pointed out that it did not say when or how long it took. I know of twenty-two places in the Bible in twelve different books of the Bible where it states, directly or indirectly, that God created the earth, but in none of them does it state when or how long it took. The Judge expressed his surprise because he said that he had always understood that the Bible said that God created the earth in six days, and that the arguments were over the question of the length of a day, whether it was twelve hours, twenty-four hours, a longer period of time, or a geological era. This gave me the opportunity to read the second verse of Genesis 1: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. I pointed out to the Judge that when God created the earth in the beginning it was perfect, but something catastrophic happened, and in the Hebrew version the second verse would read something like this: Now the earth was unformed and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of Elohim hovered over the waters.
This made it plain that there was something there, but it did not have shape and was useless, or a waste, and so God sent His Spirit to straighten it out, restore it to its original condition and make it into something useful in His plan.
The atheist lawyer objected because he said nothing could exist without form - if any- thing exists it must have form. So I again referred to his wife's making a cake, and asked him if when she was stirring the cake in the bowl whether it had any particular form. "Of course not," he said - it didn't have a form or shape until it was put in the mold or pan and baked, and by this he admitted that a thing could exist without definite form and - he dropped this objection.
I then pointed out to the Judge that God, through His Spirit in beginning His house-cleaning of the earth, pushed back the clouds so that light could filter through, and the light He called "day" and the darkness "night," and this was the first day. The Judge said that easily could happen in twenty-four hours. I showed how God pushed the clouds further back and made what the aviators call a "ceiling" between the clouds and the substance of the earth and God called it a "firmament" and men call this cloudy ceiling "heaven." I told him also that the Bible mentioned three heavens - the heaven where the clouds are, the heaven beyond w here the stars are and the heaven where God's throne is; and all this was the second day, the events of which could easily have occurred in a few hours. On the third day God gathered the waters into one place and let dry land appear and the dry land was called "earth" and the waters were called "seas," and then seeds, which were already in the earth before the cataclysm and before the earth was covered with water, now commenced to grow and "bring forth grass, and the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind." The Judge said that seemed to be reasonable, and, of course, that could easily happen in a very short time. I read the fourteenth verse, how God pushed the ceiling of the clouds away back and let the sun, moon and stars shine through, for signs as well as seasons, and days and years, and then quoted: The heavens declare the glon' of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
The atheist witness objected to this. but said that he could not disprove it. I next explained how, the earth having been restored to its original condition. God created beasts, birds and fish to live upon it, which He did on the fifth day, and, that being completed. He created man on the sixth day to take charge and or have dominion over the whole earth.
The Judge said that all seemed reasonable, and the atheist witness said that he did not believe it. He admitted, however, that there were lots of people who did believe it, and he could not prove they were wrong.
I then turned to Isaiah 45:18 and read: For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it: he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.
I asked the witness if he had ever read it and he replied in the negative. I then pointed out that there were four things which God said He did. The first was the Hebrew word "Barah," but the witness said that he knew no Hebrew. The court stenographer. Max Rosenfeld, was a Hebrew scholar and he said that "barah" means "to produce something from nothing and that is the meaning of the word 'create' in Genesis 1:1." I suggested that this might mean that God first created the things which appear from the things which do not appear, as mentioned in Hebrews 11:3, and the court stenographer agreed with me but the witness knew nothing about it. These might have been electrons or neutrons, or whatever is the smallest particle of matter. Then, later. He "made" (asah) these atoms into the heaven and the earth which He "formed" or molded, for which the Hebrew word is "yatsar." Then He established it (word in the Hebrew pronounced "koon"). This means that He put the gold in the hills, the coal, all the metals and minerals where they could be obtained and used by men, and He put the proper chemicals into the water and air and into the ground to provide for our needs, and the needs of beasts, birds, fish and vegetables.
Then came the following dialogue:
"He says that He established the earth. It has the same meaning as your establishing yourself in business. You furnish your store with goods."
"God was starting us in business?"
"Yes. God was starting us in business. Sure - God was starting us in business. You never studied this?"
"! think it is a delightful fairy story."
"It is in the Bible isn't it?"
"Yes."
"You have no evidence to prove it is not so, have you?"
"No-. I cannot prove Santa Clause does not exist."
"You cannot prove that God did not produce-"
THE COURT: "He cannot prove that."
"So you would not get anywhere with Isaiah 45:18?"
"No."
The witness said that he had no faith in anything except facts. He qualified it by saying that by the facts he meant "any evidence of their existence by other means."
I asked him if the sun, moon and stars were not evidence of God, and he said that they were not to him.
I asked him who made the laws of nature and he replied that they were made by men; that "we observe what happens and then form laws from it."
I asked him if God did not fix centrifugal force, cohesion, adhesion, gravitation and such things and his answer was - ""No. God did not fix it. They are fixed by the nature of matter itself." He said that he did not believe in God, or in hell, or in any future punishment, but he did believe in morals.
His lawyer objected to my asking the witness if there was a God, because he said that was impertinent. He said that the Bible was scorned and sneered at in every school, but I asked him if he ever heard of Roman Catholic and other denominational schools. He said he had. I asked if the Bible was scorned and sneered at in those schools. He replied, "I should have qualified my statement as to schools by saying public schools, because naturally the Catholic schools are tied up to a curriculum teaching. We do not expect much from the theological school or Catholic schools in the normal teaching of science."
Q. "They accept the Bible as the Word of God as far as you know?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "As the Book to be honored, respected and believed?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "There are a great many of these schools are there not?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "So far as you know they treat the Bible with respect?"
A. "Absolutely."
He finally admitted that there were some parts of the Bible that he believed but they were very rare, but, on the other hand, he could not prove that the Bible was not true.
I did not ask this witness anything about the ark because it was very apparent that he was not a Bible student. The only witnesses who had referred to the ark were the Rabbi, who admitted that he did not know what was the size of Noah's cubit and, therefore, could not prove the size of the ark, and Dr. Potter. who said he did not believe there was any flood or any ark in the time of Noah.
I rather regretted the fact that they did not offer more proof because I had been studying up on the subject as far as I could and was convinced that the ark was large enough to hold the prescribed cargo. I had some notes all ready to use if I had opportunity. My best information is that there are about two million five hundred thousand living things on the earth, of which sixty per cent are aquatic, and, inasmuch as they live in the water, the flood would have been an excellent holiday for them, and. of course, they would not have gone into the ark at all. That leaves forty per cent for the ark – and I understand that seventy per cent of these are insects. I have heard Dr. Rimmer say, "You could get two of every species of insect on the hides of two good-sized elephants and they would not, therefore, occupy any additional space in the ark." Furthermore, you would not have to carry any food for the insects because they have their own system of domestic economy. They did not need any "new deal'" to preserve their rights or provide for their nourishment or occupation.
I am, of course, referring to the different kinds or species and not to the infinite number of varieties of each kind. Eliminating the aquatic creatures and the insects, there are only twelve per cent of living creatures larger than insects to go into the ark. Of course, we are speaking of the different kinds of living creatures today because no one knows with any accuracy how many kinds were living in the time of Noah. We must remember that the so called "pre-historic" animals were all pre-Adamic and had been destroyed in the cataclysm which had made the earth without form and void. The animals which did go into the ark were undoubtedly the same general kinds which exist today and if you think very hard you can probably think up twenty or twenty-five kinds larger than a dog. In classifying them you must remember that when you say "deer" that takes in all elk, moose, caribou and all members of the deer (cervidoe) family, and this applies to every other kind or species and not to the varieties thereof.
Inasmuch as the ark was probably bigger than any boat that we know, the problem was not whether it was large enough to hold the animals but what did Noah do with all of its empty space. It is true that provisions had to be carried for at least a year and ten days, during which time the ark was occupied. We must also remember there were no carnivorous animals, but they all ate herbs (Gen.1:29-30) and there is no mention in the Bible of carnivora until we reach the ninth chapter of Genesis, detailing the method of life after the flood. Therefore, all of the food which Noah needed to carry was grain. The ark seems to have had three enormous floors and perhaps what we would call a basement -- and there were probably very few partitions, and no machinery which occupies so much space on modem vessels. The ark did not even have a rudder, and the reason is obvious. If Noah had been given any choice in directing the course of the ark he certainly would have punctured it on a tree top or crashed it against some hidden rocks and would have wrecked the whole enterprise. And if he had not made such a wrong turn his wife, or some of the children surely would have told him how to do it. But as God had guaranteed the lives of all of the passengers, He shut the door tight, locked it from the outside, put the window out of reach and granted no power at all to Noah. I am strongly inclined to believe that the ark was purposely designed by God to be large enough to hold Noah's family and the animals and anyone else who would come. Our Lord always does things in a superlative manner. He is "able to do exceeding abundantly above all we can ask or think" (Ephesians 3:20). The ark is a type of Christ (Colossians 3:3), and our "life is hid with Christ in God" and there is room in Him for all of mankind who will accept Him as Saviour. So, I believe that the ark was equally ample, and the pity is that the people living at the time of Noah did not accept the invitation but left so much space in the ark unoccupied and were, therefore, destroyed in the flood when they might have been saved in the ark; the very type of the terrible soul tragedy which is happening today.
Neither did I ask the witnesses anything about the quail because the plaintiff had skipped this matter entirely, and, of course, I could not bring it up on cross-examination, but the last witness had testified that the Bible was unscientific because it said that the coney chewed a cud. He had testified that the coney was a European rabbit and did not chew a cud. When I asked him where in the Bible he referred to the coney, he said he did not know and he did not even know it was in the Bible, but he was merely describing the coney from his knowledge as a scientist.
I handed him the Roman Catholic, or Douay version of the Bible and asked him to read the fifth verse of the eleventh chapter of Leviticus, which is the one in the King James version referring to the coney. He read it and said there was no coney there, but that he found a cherogryllus. I asked him if he knew what that was, and he admitted he did not. I asked him whether he knew whether the cherogryllus chewed a cud and he said he did not. I asked him whether the cherogryllus and coney were the same; he replied that he had never heard of the beast. He admitted that he knew that the Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew, so I asked him if he knew what was the Hebrew word for "coney." He said he did not know any Hebrew. I told him that the Hebrew word was "shoffon" and asked him if he knew whether the "shoffon" chewed a cud. He had never heard of the animal. I asked him whether "coney" or "cherogryllus" was the proper translation of "shoffon" and he said that he was not an authority on translations. He could not tell whether the shoffon chewed a cud or whether it did not, so I suggested that "perhaps the Bible was right when it said the shoffon chewed a cud." He answered, "It might be - I do not know." The Judge indicated that we would then skip the coney.
The next point was in reference to the camel. The Complaint having stated that the Bible was unscientific because it says; “... as the camel... he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you” (Lev. 11:4).
In direct examination Mr. Teller had said that the camel's hoof was divided, so I asked him where he got his information. He replied that he had seen the skeleton of a camel in the museum and had observed that the skeleton had two bony toes on each foot. I reminded him that we were not talking about skeletons but a whole live camel which had flesh, blood and skin, and I admitted that the camel might have two bony toes just as the elephant had five bony toes, and asked him whether when these were covered with flesh and skin it would be one pad, like the horse or two pads like the cow. After going through a process called thinking he said that it was his recollection that the whole foot was fully covered and was not cloven. I suggested that the Bible was right, and he agreed that it was right in regard to the camel,– so the Judge thought we would skip that point too.
CHAPTER IV
THE TRIAL’S CLOSE
Altogether during the preparation for the trial the atheists raised fifty-three points against the Bible, but they had reduced them to eight for the purpose of the trial, and stated that they were perfectly confident that, while they needed to prove only one of the points, nevertheless, they could easily prove the whole eight.
We have not been able to give all the evidence because of limited space. The taking of evidence in court occupied a day and a half, and we have had to abridge it very much, giving only the high points.
The last claim was that the Bible is unscientific and, therefore, wrong, because in Leviticus 11:6 it reads: And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. Inasmuch as all the other seven points had been rejected by the judge because of failure of proof, their whole case now hung on a "hare."
Mr. Teller testified that the hare was just a small rabbit and it was common knowledge that a small rabbit did not chew a cud. The lawyer beamed at the Judge and said: "We are entitled to one thousand dollars just on this point which is so perfectly plain." However, I asked the witness if he knew what was the Hebrew word translated "hare." He repeated that he did not know any Hebrew. The Hebrew word is "amebeth" and Max Rosenfeld, the court stenographer, agreed with me on this. The witness admitted that he had never heard of the "amebeth" and did not know whether or not it chewed a cud. Mr. Rosenfeld, off the record, stated that the "amebeth" was an unidentified and probably extinct animal. I then asked the witness whether he knew if this extinct animal called the arnebeth had chewed a cud before he became extinct. The witness seemed quite disgusted and wanted to know how I supposed he would know a thing like that, so the subject was dropped.
Their "hare" was gone from the case and it was completely bald now. The atheist lawyer said: "That is the plaintiffs case." The Judge wanted to know whether he meant he had no more witnesses and no more evidence to offer. The lawyer answered in the affirmative. The Judge seemed amazed, and I suggested that he dismiss the Complaint, which he did.
The Atheist lawyer, however, wanted to argue on the motion to dismiss, but the Court reminded him that at the very beginning of this trial he had promised the Judge that he would offer real evidence to substantiate his Complaint, and he had not proven anything, in the Judge's estimation. The court said, "You have the burden of proof. You must make out a prima facie case at the time the plaintiff rests. You failed to do so."
And so the case ended, but a few weeks later the atheists held a victory celebration, claiming that they had really won the case but had lost on some technicality. This, of course, was merely to "save their faces" because they had not succeeded in proving anything on any of the eight points, but they had definitely proved the truth of God's statement in the fourteenth Psalm – "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
The defendants did not have to testify, because the plaintiff's case was dismissed for want of proof. But it would have been a real joy to have had Dr. Harry Rimmer on the witness stand. His keen mind and comprehensive knowledge would have made a great contrast to the miserable inadequacy of the Atheists.
I believe that God definitely permitted this trial to occur because the atheists have for a long time wanted their day in court to prove the Bible is wrong. They had their day but the Bible still stands, and the trial has given me more courage and more faith.
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. I do not have to argue about it. If you do not believe, then you prove that I am wrong, if you can.
I believe that the teaching of the Bible is true; that God did create the heavens and the earth. If you do not believe it, prove that it is wrong!
I believe that man became a sinner through the disobedience of Adam. I believe that God made a way of salvation for man through the sacrifice of His Only Son, Jesus Christ, who was quickly raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven in a glorified body, where He now lives as my Saviour and Lord. If you do not believe this, then prove that it is wrong.
I get great joy and comfort from my belief. God's Spirit witnesses to my spirit of the truth of these matters, and this is a greater proof than I can get through my five physical senses. Natural man cannot perceive the things of God because they are spiritual (I Cor. 2:14) and while eye hath not seen nor ear heard the things of God, nevertheless, God has revealed them to those whose souls are alive, having been born from above through faith in Jesus Christ. If you do not believe this, then prove that it is wrong, but I am sure that through faith in these things of God you will get a joy and comfort, and receive eternal salvation, which the world cannot provide.
Now I want you to read what a real scientist says about some of these things. Michael Idvorsky Pupin, who had been the president of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (not Association for the Advancement of Atheism), was one of the world's outstanding scientists. He died at the age of seventy-seven years in June, 1935. and just before he died he said: Heaven is what scientists call the real world, of which this world is only a picture. All of this world – the present world – is perceived through the senses. We see a sunset, a rainbow, the stars, the new green of spring; we hear the songs of the birds: we smell the perfume of the rose; we taste; we feel; but it all leads to glimpses of another world. The real purpose of science is not merely to make material things, – inventions to increase wealth and comfort. If science does not help to give me and others a better faith to live by, a higher understanding of the Creator, a closer relationship to God, so that I can better carry out the Divine purpose, then I am a failure.
At a previous time he said that as a scientist he found in his long distance studies... concrete physical evidence that God loves the soul of man into which the Spirit of the Lord has planted liberty.
The Choice Is Yours
Now the choice is yours. The Bible or Atheism. There is no middle road. You must either accept the Bible as God’s revelation to man or reject it. Think with me logically. Suppose Atheism is right and there is no God. That means you're right and I'm wrong. My question to you is, "What have I lost?" But, suppose I'm right and you're wrong. What have you lost? Everything! The consequence of your decision right now is not related to time, but eternity. You must be sure your decision is the right one.
THE RIGHT CHOICE
Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6) If you will simply do three things you can have your answer forever.
Admit you're a sinner. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
(Rom. 3:23)
Believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins on the Cross and wants to become our personal Savior today. (John 3:16)
Call upon Him by praying and asking Him to come into your heart and life to become your Savior. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:13)
Our Guest Book
