CHAPTER XXI.

THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE.

"There is a beautiful harmony between the principles of science and the teachings of the Bible."--Dr. Cheever.

Bibliolaters, unacquainted with the principles of science, and scientists unacquainted with the teachings of the Bible, may accept this statement; those conversant with both cannot. In the Bible a thousand scientific errors may be found. The limits of this work preclude a presentation of them all. Enough will be given, however, to show that the teachings of the Bible conflict with the teachings of the ten principal sciences--Astronomy, Geology, Geography, Botany, Zoology, Ethnology, Physiology, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics.

Astronomy.

"And God said, Let there be light, and there was light" (Gen. i, 3).

"And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (5).

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also ... and the evening and the morning were the fourth day" (16, 19).

The cause is supposed to precede the effect; but here the effect precedes the cause. Light and darkness, morning and evening, day and night exist before the sun.

The Bible teaches us that the earth is older than the sun; science teaches us that the sun is older than the earth.

In the creation of the universe God devoted five-sixths of his time to the creation of this little world of ours, while but a fragment of the remaining time was needed to create the countless worlds that exist outside of our solar system. Five brief words, "He made the stars also," record the history of their creation.

According to the Bible, the oldest star is less than six thousand years old. What says the scientist?

"I have observed stars, of which the light, it can be proved, must take two millions of years to reach this earth."--Sir William Herschel.

"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."

"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" (Josh. x, 12, 13).

"Behold, I [the Lord] will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees" (Isaiah xxxviii, 8).

The Bible teaches the geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth; Science teaches the heliocentric theory that the earth revolves around the sun.

Luther, accepting the Bible and rejecting science, wrote:

"The fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of Astronomy. But sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."

"Biblical astronomy," says the celebrated Jewish commentator, Dr. Kalisch, "is derived from mere optical appearance."

Geology.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. i, 1).

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit" (i, 11).

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth" (i, 20).

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things" (i, 24).

"And God said, Let us make man in our image" (i, 26).

"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth" (Ex. xx, 11).

According to the Bible, the earth was created in six days about six thousand years ago. Geology tells us that the earth was old six million years ago.

To make room for the earth's development, theologians now contend that a vast period of time elapsed between the work recorded in the first verse and in those following. To this Bishop Colenso replies:

"We are plainly taught in the book of Genesis, according to the simple, straightforward meaning of the words, that Elohim created the heaven and the earth in the beginning of these six days--that is, taking into account the chronological data of the Bible, about six thousand years ago" (The Pentateuch, Part IV, p. 94).

Again, theologians claim that these six days were not six literal days, but six long epochs of time. The Rev. Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover Theological Seminary, one of the ablest Hebrew scholars, says:

"When the sacred writer in Genesis i says, the first day, the second day, etc., there can be no possible doubt--none.... What puts this beyond all question in philology is that the writer says specifically, the evening and the morning were the first day, the second day, etc. Now, is an evening and a morning a period of some thousands of years? Is it, in any sense, when so employed, an indefinite period? The answer is so plain and certain that I need not repeat it. If Moses has given us an erroneous account of the creation, so be it. Let it come out, and let us leave the whole. But do not let us turn aside his language to get rid of difficulties that we may have in our speculations."

The Jewish scholar, Dr. Kalisch, not only rejects this interpretation of the word day, but admits that it would not reconcile Genesis with science if allowed. He says:

"The device that the days denote epochs is not only arbitrary, but ineffective, for the six epochs of the Mosaic creation correspond in no manner with the gradual formation of cosmos."

According to Genesis the creation of organic life occupied but three of these six days. The order of creation for these three days, or periods, is as follows: 1. (3d day) Land plants; 2. (5th day) aquatic animals, birds; 3. (6th day) Mammals, reptiles, man.

Is this confirmed by science? Passing Lyell by, let us cite our more orthodox Dana. Dr. Dana, who professed to believe that the study of Geology tended "to strengthen faith in the Book of books," gives the several geological ages, together with the successive appearances of organic life, as follows: 1. Archæan Age--Lowest marine life, if any; 2. Silurian Age--Invertebrates, marine plants; 3. Devonian Age--Fish, earliest appearance of land plants; 4. Carboniferous Age--Luxuriant vegetation, lowest forms of reptiles; 5. Reptilian Age--Highest forms of reptiles; 6. Tertiary Age--Birds, mammals; 7. Quaternary Age--Man.

Even Dana cannot reconcile Genesis with Geology. Genesis tells us that the earliest organic life was terrestrial vegetation; Geology tells us that ages of organic life passed before terrestrial plants appeared. Genesis tells us that fish and fowls were created at the same time; Geology tells us that the finny tribes existed ages before the feathered tribes appeared. Genesis tells us that mammals and reptiles were created at the same time; Geology tells us that while reptiles existed in the Carboniferous age, mammals did not appear until the close of the Reptilian age. Genesis tells us that birds appeared before reptiles; Geology tells us that reptiles existed first. Genesis tells us that life existed first upon the land; Geology tells us that the sea teemed with animal and vegetable life ages before it appeared upon the land.

The seven ages of Geology comprise twenty-five geological periods. Genesis recognizes but six periods in the creation of the entire universe; Geology recognizes twenty-five periods in the formation of earth's crust alone. According to Bible chronology, the universe is less than six thousand years old; according to Geology, the mere existence of life upon earth's crust, which is as but a day compared with the existence of the universe, is probably nearly fifty millions of years. Dr. Dana says:

"If time from the commencement of the Silurian included 48 millions of years, which some geologists would pronounce much too low an estimate, the Paleozoic part [Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous], according to the above ratio, would comprise 36 millions, the Mesozoic [Reptilian] 9 millions, and the Cenozoic [Tertiary and Quaternary] 3 millions" (Text Book of Geology, p. 329).

When Geology was in its infancy scientists attempted to reconcile its teachings with the teachings of the Bible. No scientist worthy of the name attempts to reconcile them now.

Writing over thirty years ago, Carl Vogt thus records the triumph of Geology over Genesis:

"It is hardly twenty years since I learned from Agassiz: transitional strata, palæozoic formations--kingdom of fishes; there are no reptiles in this period, and cannot be any, because it would be contrary to the plan of creation; secondary formations (Trias, Jura, chalk)--kingdom of reptiles; there are no mammals and cannot be any, for the same reason; tertiary strata--kingdom of mammals; there are no men and cannot be any; present creation--kingdom of man. What is become of this plan of creation, with its exclusiveness? Reptiles in the Devonian strata, reptiles in the coal, reptiles in the Dyas. Farewell, kingdom of fish! Mammals in the Jura, mammals in Purbeck chalk, which some reckon as the lowest chalk formation; good-by, kingdom of reptiles! Men in the highest tertiary strata, men in the diluvial forms--au revoir, kingdom of mammals!"

Geography.

"The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" (1 Chron. xvi, 30).

"Who laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be removed forever" (Ps. civ, 5).

"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them" (1 Sam. ii, 8).

"I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" (Rev. vii, 1).

"The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world" (Matt. iv, 8).

The science of Geography describes the earth as spherical in form, with a daily revolution on its axis and an annual revolution around the sun. The Bible describes it as stable, flat, and angular.

"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

"The name of the first is Pison" [Indus or Ganges] (Gen. ii, 10, 11).

"And the name of the second river is Gihon [Nile]: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

"And the name of the third river is Hiddekel [Tigris]: ... And the fourth river is Euphrates" (ii, 13, 14).

Bible geography makes the Nile and the Euphrates both branches of the same river.

"Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar" (John iv, 5).

Samaria contained no city of this name.

"These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan" (John i, 28, New Ver.).

Bethany was a suburb of Jerusalem and not located beyond the Jordan.

"He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan" (Matt. xix, 1).

The dead sea and the Jordan formed the eastern boundary of Judea, and no coasts of Judea existed beyond the Jordan.

"Which was of Bethsaida of Galilee" (John xii, 21).

Bethsaida was not of Galilee, but of Perea.

Botany.

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind" (Gen. i, 12).

"And the evening and the morning were the third day" (i, 13).

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day" (i, 16).

"And the evening and the morning were the fourth day" (i, 19).

The Bible states that the earth was covered with vegetation, that grass and herbs and trees flourished without the heat and light of the sun. Science denies it.

"Cursed is the ground for thy sake.... Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee" (Gen. iii, 17, 18).

Thorns and thistles are represented as resulting from a curse. They are no more the result of a curse than are grapes and corn.

"And again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; and the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off" (Gen. viii, 10, 11).

Hebrew commentators state that it was a fresh olive leaf. The Bible writer supposes that the earth could be submerged for nearly a year without the vegetable kingdom being destroyed. Had this deluge really occurred, all vegetation, save, perhaps, a few aquatic plants, would have died.

"He planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it" (Is. xliv, 14).

Not in Western Asia, for the tree does not grow there. Bible commentators believe that the pine is meant.

The authors of Genesis (xxx, 37) and Ezekiel (xxxi, 8) both mention the chestnut-tree. But it is admitted that the chestnut did not grow where they stated. Referring to this error, Smith's Bible Dictionary says: "The 'plane-tree' ought probably to have been substituted. The context of the passages where the word occurs indicates some tree which thrives best in low and rather moist situations, whereas the chestnut-tree is a tree which prefers dry and hilly ground."

"Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (John xii, 24).

If it die it bringeth forth no fruit.

Zoology.

"Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of everything that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two [or by sevens of clean according to another account] unto Noah into the ark" (Gen. vii, 8, 9).

The animal kingdom, including insects, etc., comprises more than 1,000,000 species. According to the Bible, two or more of every species from every clime--polar animals accustomed to a temperature of fifty degrees below zero, and tropical, to one hundred degrees above--were brought together and preserved for a year in an ark. If the teachings of Natural History be true, this Bible story is false.

The Bible pronounces unclean and unfit for food the following animals:

"The camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof" (Lev. xi, 4).

"The coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof" (xi, v).

"The hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof" (xi, 6).

"The swine, though he divideth the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud" (xi, 7).

Every statement proclaims the writer's ignorance of the simple facts of Zoology. The camel does divide the hoof; the coney does not chew the cud; the hare does not chew the cud; the swine is not cloven-footed (bisulcate), but four-toed.

"All ruminants have the foot cleft, and they only have it."--Cuvier.

"Every one of the four instances or illustrations brought forward by the Biblical writer is necessarily erroneous; any attempt at defending them implies an impotent struggle against Science."--Dr. Kalisch.

Scarcely less erroneous are the following passages: "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls: ... the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing and the bat.

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

"Even these of them may ye eat: the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you" (Lev. xi, 13-23).

"And the Lord said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life" (Gen. iii, 14).

The serpent does not eat dust, while Science shows that it crawled upon its belly before the curse just as it did afterward.

Ethnology.

According to the Bible, all mankind have sprung from a single pair created by God six thousand years ago. Science does not admit that man is the result of a divine creative act, that all the races have descended from a single pair, or that his existence here is confined to the brief period of sixty centuries. She is not able to tell yet, even approximately, when man's advent upon the earth occurred, but she has long since proved the Biblical record false, and shown that instead of his having occupied the earth but six thousand years he has been here at the least from ten to fifty times six thousand years.

Referring to the Biblical origin of man, Professor Huxley says: "Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic monogenism as if it were an established truth, and believe it. I do not; and I am not acquainted with any man of science, or duly instructed person, who does" (Methods and Results of Ethnology).

"There were giants in the earth in those days" (Gen. vi, 4).

The Bible, like the mythical records of other early nations, represents the earth as peopled with a race of giants. Yet the stature of man is as great to-day as it was five thousand years ago.

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years" (Gen. v, 5).

The Bible says that for a period of two thousand years men lived for centuries, that at least seven patriarchs attained to an age of nearly 1,000 years. The Egyptian records of that period show that man's longevity was no greater then than it is now.

Not only the size and age of men, but their numbers are exaggerated by Bible writers. The Israelites, at the time they settled in Palestine, numbered, it is claimed, two or three millions. Out of this country, to make room for them, God cast "seven nations greater and mightier than" the Israelite nation (Deut. vii, 1). Palestine must then have sustained a population as great as Spain does now with a territory thirty times as large.

The census of Israel and Judah, taken in the time of David, places the number of warriors at 1,570,000 (1 Ch. xxi, 5). This makes the whole population twice as great as that of Illinois with an area nine times as large as Palestine and a soil ten times as fertile.

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech" (Gen. xi, 1):

"Let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech" (Gen. xi, 7).

The origin of the various languages of men is here attributed to a miraculous confusion of tongues. Science shows that languages had no such origin. Renan says:

"Far from placing unity at the beginning of language, it is necessary to look at such a unity as the slow and tardy result of an advanced civilization. In the beginning there were as many dialects as families."

This Bible account of the confusion of tongues is contradicted by the preceding chapter of Genesis (x, 5, 20, 31), which, referring to the children of Japheth, Ham, and Shem, says they were divided "every one after his tongue," "after their families, after their tongues."

Physiology.

"And the ark rested in the seventh month ... upon the mountains of Ararat" (Gen. viii, 4).

"And in the second month [of the following year] was the earth dried" (viii, 14).

Here on the top of Ararat, three miles above the surrounding country, and three thousand feet above the region of perpetual snow, for months, the respiratory organs of man and all the animals of earth performed their functions without difficulty!

"Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?" (Matt. ix, 4).

"What reason ye in your hearts?" (Luke v, 22).

Jesus recognizes the heart as the seat of reason and intelligence.

"In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children" (Gen. iii, 16).

"She was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. i, 18).

"Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit" (Mark v, 8).

"And the prayer of faith shall save the sick" (James v, 15).

Attributing the pains of parturition to a curse, recording the generation of a child without a natural father, ascribing nervous and other disorders to demons, and healing the sick by prayer are Biblical, but not scientific.

"And all the first-born males [of Israel] ... were twenty and two thousand two hundred and three score and thirteen" (Num. iii, 43).

As the population of Israel was about 3,000,000, this would give 130 persons to each family and an average of 128 children to each mother. Faith may accept this, but physiological science rejects it.

Chemistry.

"And he lifted up the rod and smote the waters that were in the river, ... and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood" (Ex. vii, 20).

"Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine," etc. (John ii, 7-9).

"But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt" (Gen. xix, 26).

"And he took the [golden] calf which they had made and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it" (Ex. xxxii, 20).

Turning a river into blood, water into wine, flesh into salt, and burning and grinding gold into powder and holding it in solution, cannot be harmonized with the teachings of science.

But it is not merely to a few Biblical passages, to a few so-called miraculous changes in the elements of nature, that the science of chemistry is opposed. It is opposed to the entire Bible as a divine revelation. The central ideas of this book, a Creator, a Providence, and a Mediator, are all overthrown by this science.

Referring to this, Comte truthfully observes:

"However imperfect our chemical science is, its development has operated largely in the emancipation of the human mind. Its opposition to all theological philosophy is marked by two general facts, ... first the prevision of phenomena, and next our voluntary modification of them" (Positive Philosophy, Book IV., chap. i).

"In this way, Chemistry effectually discredits the notion of the rule of Providential will among its phenomena. But there is another way in which it acts no less strongly: by abolishing the idea ... of creation in nature" (Ibid).

Physics.

"I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood, to destroy all flesh" (Gen. ix, 13-15).

The Bible writer did not know that it was the refraction and reflection of the sun's rays on the drops of water which produced the prismatic colors of the rainbow; he did not know that the phenomenon was as old as rain and sunshine, but believed it to be a postdiluvian sign thrown on the dark canvas of clouds by the Almighty.

"It seems plain," says the Bishop of Natal, "that the writer supposes the bow to have been seen for the first time when the deluge was over."

"The words which Moses spake unto all Israel" (Deut. i, 1).

"And Moses called all Israel and said unto them" (v, 1).

"There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel" (Josh. viii, 35).

Nature's temple must have possessed wonderful acoustic properties to enable Moses and Joshua to reach the ears of a multitude of three millions.

"Let us build a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven" (Gen. xi, 4).

God himself, ignorant of pneumatics, believes the project possible, and confounds their language to prevent it.

"And the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were as a wall unto them on the right hand, and on their left" (Ex. xiv, 21, 22).

A fundamental principle of hydrostatics is the following: "When a pressure is exerted on any part of the surface of a liquid, that pressure is transmitted undiminished to all parts of the mass, and in all directions."

Mathematics.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John v, 7).

"The incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one and one is three!"--Thomas Jefferson.

Matthew concludes his genealogy of Jesus as follows:

"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations" (Matt. i, 17).

This genealogy, including both Abraham and Jesus, contains but forty-one generations. Here we have an inspired scholar performing the mathematical solution of dividing forty-one generations by three and obtaining fourteen generations for a quotient.

"The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and three score" (Ezra ii, 64).

This number, 42,360, is given as the whole number of persons belonging to the families that returned from Babylon. Adding together the numbers given in the census register, of which the above is declared to be the sum total, we find the whole number to be only 29,818--a difference and a discrepancy of 12,542.

The foregoing are but three of three hundred mathematical errors to be found in the Bible.

It is not merely in a few unimportant scientific details, but in the fundamental principles of the most important sciences--of astronomy, of geology, of geography, and of man--that the Bible errs. Its writers evince no divine knowledge of the facts of nature. Their works exhibit the crude notions of the age in which they lived. Some of their teachings are in harmony with the accepted truths of Science; but these prove no more than a human origin. The wisest of mankind do not know all; the most ignorant know something. While there are phenomena too complex for the mind of a Newton or a Darwin to grasp, there are others regarding which the first impressions of a child are correct.

To assert that the Bible is in harmony with the teachings of Modern Science is to assert that no advancement has been made in Science for two thousand years, when all know that many of the most marvelous scientific discoveries are less than two hundred years old. The scientific attainments of Bible writers were not above those of the age and country in which they lived, and probably far below; for the Bible is largely the work of theologians, and theologians have ever been behind their age in scientific knowledge. The mission of theologians is not to advance, but to retard Science. They have waged a relentless but ineffective warfare against it. In the words of Huxley: "Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science, as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules."

"The Hebrew Pentateuch," says Gerald Massey, "has not only retarded the growth of science for eighteen centuries, but the ignorant believers in it as a book of revelation have tried to strangle every science at its birth. There could be and was but little or no progress in Astronomy, Geology, Biology, or Sociology until its teachings were repudiated by the more enlightened among men."

Of the Bible and Science thus writes America's eminent scientist and author, Dr. John W. Draper:

"It is to be regretted that the Christian church has burdened itself with the defense of these books, and voluntarily made itself answerable for their manifest contradictions and errors.... Still more, it is to be deeply regretted that the Pentateuch, a production so imperfect as to be unable to stand the touch of modern criticism, should be put forth as the arbiter of science" (Conflict Between Religion and Science, p. 225).

"The world is not to be discovered through the vain traditions that have brought down to us the opinions of men who lived in the morning of civilization, nor in the dreams of mystics who thought that they were inspired" (Ibid, p. 33).

"For her [Science] the volume of inspiration is the book of Nature, of which the open scroll is ever spread forth before the eyes of every man. Confronting all, it needs no societies for its dissemination. Infinite in extent, eternal in duration, human ambition and human fanaticism have never been able to tamper with it. On the earth it is illustrated by all that is magnificent and beautiful, on the heavens its letters are suns and worlds" (Ib., p. 227).