(Genesis) Theories of Origin

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.