Old, Out of Context Quotations from French Scientists

Old, Out of Context Quotations from French Scientists

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

- Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17. (P. 5 of The Revised Quote Book)

So far as the research below demonstrates, this quotation appears to be a mistakenly jumbled combination of statements made by two different people at least 36 years ago! - Neither did the editors of The Revised Quote Book find enough room or honesty in their publication to discuss the social/historical context out of which the quotation(s) arose. The famous French scientist, Lamarck, was the first major scientific figure in Europe to seriously and strenuously propose "the theory of transformism" [today known as "the theory of evolution"]. So naturally, when the British "amateur scientist," Darwin, usurped Lamarck's throne to become known as the "father of transformism/evolution" the French were miffed. To them, Lamarck was the "father" of that theory. This basic disagreement must be taken into consideration whenever quotations from French scientists regarding "transformism" or "evolution" are cited, especially since those very words soon became identified with Darwin's (rather than Lamarck's) theory of "how" it occurred. This helps explain some quotations from French scientists wherein they showed disdain for "transformism/evolution." (However, note the very end of this article for the latest word on what French scientists think of evolution and even Darwin's theory!)

Grasse and the "Myth of Evolution"

Even until the 1970s there was at least one famous French scientist of the "old school," Pierre P. Grasse, who continued to voice strong reservations concerning Darwin's particular explanation (and the Neo-Darwinian explanation) of "how" evolution occurred. Not surprisingly, Grasse is quoted FIVE TIMES in The Revised Quote Book, because he wrote of the "myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon."

However, the editors of The Revised Quote Book neglect to tell their readers that in the same book by Grasse from which they have quoted, Grasse also stated in the most unequivocal terms: "Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution."

(Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)

Of course, Grasse also tipped his hat to the French "father of evolution," Lamarck, stating: "Lamarckism, which is no less logical than Darwinism ... is a tempting theory ... and we would not be surprised to learn from molecular biology that some of its [Lamarckism's] intuitions are partly true...it should be considered today a way of thinking, of understanding nature, rather than a strict doctrine entirely oriented toward the explaining of evolution."

(Pierre P. Grasse, p. 8)

The authors of The Revised Quote Book lifted Grasse's phrase, "the myth of evolution," out of context, trying to deceive others into believing that Grasse was doubtful of evolution even though he stated he "agreed" with the "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that "evolution" was an historical scientific "fact." Grasse simply disagreed with explanations of exactly "how" evolution occurred. He felt the "how" part was not a "simple, understood, and explained phenomenon."

E.T. BABINSKI

An Out of Context Quotation - Richard Dawkins

An Out of Context Quotation - Richard Dawkins

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer."

- Dr. Richard Dawkins (Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK), 'The necessity of Darwinism'. New Scientist, vol. 94, 15 April 1982, P. 130. (The Revised Quote Book, P. 6)

By lifting this brief sentence out of its original context the editors of The Revised Quote Book make it sound like Dawkins is in favor of teaching the instantaneous creation of animals and plants as part of a "two model" approach to "origins." However, any reader paying attention to Dawkins' use of the word, "Superficially," and to the title of Dawkins' article, "The Necessity of Darwinism," must realize that the editors have ignored the context of the quotation. In context, Dawkins wrote:

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventual to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.

"Darwin's theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist...

(For further information on what Dr. Dawkins has to say about Darwin's theory, I recommend his two books, The Blind Watchmaker, and, River of Life.)

E.T. BABINSKI

A "Devilish" Quotation: Darwin and The Devil's Gospel

A "Devilish" Quotation: Darwin and The Devil's Gospel

Before discussing some of the quotations in The Revised Quote Book, I'd like to alert readers to a "devilish" statement in one of Darwin's letters that creationists are milking for all its "unholy" worth. The quotation has appeared in a number of creationist magazines and at least one book (Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales' creationist book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Baker Book Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1966, p. 64). The version that I recently ran across, appears below:

On August 8, 1860 ... in a letter to T. H. Huxley, who was one of Darwin's two outspoken champions in England, Darwin referred to Huxley as: 'My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel, i.e., the devil's gospel.' No doubt Darwin meant to be humorous with this analogy, but nevertheless, it bespoke his having an evangelistic, cosmic view toward his own work. (Lester J. McCann, "Darwin's Impact," Watchmaker, v. 2, no. 6, June 1995, p. 27)

Tom Scharle mentioned another version in an [unnamed] creationist periodical:

Charles Darwin in the closing words of a letter to Thomas Huxley, the ferocious "bulldog" for evolution, said this, "To my good and kind agent for the propagation of the gospel, i.e., the devil's gospel." Darwin and many evolutionists seem to have a better grasp on the importance and implications of origins than many in the church. Unfortunately they do not believe the truth of God's word.

This "devilish" quotation from one of Darwin's letters appears below in its original context:

...Have you seen Agassiz's weak metaphysical and theological attack on the 'Origin' in the last 'Silliman'? [The 'American Journal of Science and Arts' was commonly called 'Silliman's Journal.'] I would send it you, but apprehend it would be less trouble for you to look at it in London than return it to me. R. Wagner has sent me a German pamphlet, giving an abstract of Agassiz's 'Essay on Classification,' 'mit Rucksicht auf Darwins Ansichten,' &c. &c. He won't go very 'dangerous lengths,' but thinks the truth lies half-way between Agassiz and the 'Origin.' As he goes thus far he will, nolens volens [=willing or not willing], have to go further. He says he is going to review me in [his] yearly Report. My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel -i.e., the devil's gospel. Ever Yours, Charles Darwin. (Darwin to T. H. Huxley Aug. 8, 1860 [in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, edited by his son Francis Darwin, Vol. 11, pp. 123-4, 1959])

Note that according to the letter, Darwin may just as well have been speaking of "Mr. R. Wagner," rather than "Huxley," as "My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel - i.e., the devil's gospel." Wagner was the one who sent Darwin a German pamphlet, and Wagner said he was going to publish a review of the 'Origin' thus "propagating the Gospel" (in Germany?! which at that time rejected the theory of evolution). Wagner also expressed fears that Darwin's theory went to very "dangerous lengths," very "dangerous" being practically synonymous with "devilish." Thus Darwin could just as well have been referring to the "propagation of the devil's Gospel" that Wagner was accomplishing.

Tom Scharle wrote: "It is Wagner who is said to be 'propagating the devil's gospel,' not Huxley. Darwin is crowing how the weaknesses of his opponents' arguments (particularly Agassiz's) is winning people like Wagner over to Darwin's side. I think it is a legitimate figure of speech to say that someone is 'propagating the devil's gospel' if he is propagating something which he (in this case Wagner) doesn't intend to propagate ('nolens volens' = 'willing or not willing'). Is this a common expression?"

After searching through several authoritative dictionaries of common expressions and phrases, found that "propagating the devil's gospel" was not mentioned in any of them.

However, in Darwin's youth, when he was attending university, there was a freethinking Anglican minister who attracted a lot of attention and who was severely censured. This minister, the Rev. Robert Taylor (author of Diegesis, a biting attack on Christianity bared on comparative mythology, which he wrote while serving time in prison for blasphemy), was dubbed "The Devil's Chaplain" for his heterodox opinions.

This phrase was recalled much later by Darwin for he used it in a letter he wrote to J. Hooker (July 13, 1856): "What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature." It is therefore hardly surprising that Darwin might employ a similar phrase four years later in a letter to another close friend, Thomas Huxley.

Also, in Darwin's day at least some irate reviewers of the Origin, of which Darwin had many, must have compared his work to the "devil's."

Darwin typically let such criticisms slide off his back. In his letter to Huxley he is obviously making a joke about such "devilish" comments that others had made about his work.

So, even if the phrase did refer to Huxley (who is mentioned after it) or to R. Wagner (who is mentioned before it), it is such a trifling phrase that it can hardly "prove" anything to anyone, except to creationists, who would like to see nothing but the "devil" in "Darwinism." Of course, Darwin's use of the phrase, "propagating the devil's gospel" is no more incriminating than if he had mentioned "playing the devil's advocate," or if he had mentioned enjoying "Devil's food cake."

Another expression that Darwin used in a letter to Huxley written about three months later can be seen below:

If you have any important suggestions or criticisms to make on any part of the 'Origin,' I should, of course, be very grateful for [them]. For I mean to correct as far as I can, but not enlarge. How you must be wearied with and hate the subject [since Darwin kept bringing it up in the numerous letters he wrote Huxley. - ED.], and it is God's blessing if you do not get to hate me. (Darwin to T. H. Huxley Nov. 22, 1860)

Obviously, since Darwin employed the expression, "God's blessing," it "proves" that Darwin was really working for "God" and not the "devil." Of course such reasoning proves nothing at all, except perhaps that creationists are the ones exhibiting "devilish" behavior by their undue emphasis on a casual phrase spoken in jest, and by their questionable assumption that the phrase must have referred to "Huxley" rather than Wagner.

As I said, phrases employing the word "devil" were used to denounce people like Rev. Taylor years before Darwin. Similar phrases ran also probably be traced to a few of Darwin's irate creationist reviewers. Darwin slightly modified their phrases and sentiments to joke about how "devilish" his scientific theory was.

There's an early Christian version of a similar kind of jest made at the expense of one's self that might help Christians put Darwin's jest in perspective. The story dates back to 300 A.D., and involves a Christian exorcist and a possessed man. The demon in the man told the exorcist that he wouldn't "leave" until the exorcist answered one question, "According to the Gospel parable, who are the 'sheep' that shall enter eternal bliss, and who are the 'goats' who are worthy of eternal perdition?" The Christian replied, "The goats? That's me! The sheep? God alone knows who they are." At which point the demon replied, "Because of your humility, I will come out."

Darwin was such a genuinely humble and gentle person. For instance, he delayed publishing his theory for quite a few years because he knew his creationist wife would take offense. After his theory was published he replied even to his most vociferous critics with remarkable calmness. He was against slavery (though his close minister friend was in favor of it), and he was against "vivisection" (i.e., cutting up live cats and dogs for scientific experimentation). He wrote compassionately about the pain of animals. And he repudiated the "Social Darwinistic" interpretations of his views when they first arose. -For other aspects of Darwin's humble and gentle nature (very UNdevilish), see Issue No. 1 of Cretinism or Evilution?

Now, back to analyzing some quotations in The Revised Quote Book!

E.T. BABINSKI

Parallels between Creationists and Geocentrists

Christian and evolutionist, George H. Schweitzer, has pointed out some parallels between the way that today's "scientific creationists" argue against evolution, and the way that "Biblical and scientific geocentrists" several hundred years ago used to argue against heliocentrism:

"Not too long ago there was a new scientific idea that was introduced by several learned scientific investigators. And when many of the theologians of the day heard it they became very disturbed. They began to rail at it and they began to stir the people up. They told them, 'If you believe in this new scientific idea it's going to destroy all your faith and it's going to wreck morality in this country.' They also said, 'These fools want to reverse all true science...Their idea is based on fallible phenomena and supported by utterly ridiculous presumptions...These men have no decency and no honesty, they are infidels and atheists. Instead of their wild idea, we should listen to God...Their new idea conflicts with the 9^th chapter of Job, it denies the 10^th chapter of Joshua, it denies the 1^st chapter of Ecclesiastes, and it is against the 19^th Psalm. Because of this new scientific idea the religious authorities vilified these men, forbade their books to be published, threw them in prison, argued against them with various 'counter hypotheses' like 'philosophic logic,' and 'energy transfer,' and numerous quotes from the Bible. The leaders with their flaming language made hostile accusations and said to the people, 'Don't you dare believe these impudent fools, because if you do, the divine wrath of a violent God will visit our nation...and all who follow these men in their heretical belief will suffer eternal damnation.'

"Now, would you like to hear what the scientific idea was? It was the idea that the earth moves around the sun. How many of you believe that today? I daresay you all believe that today. Does it bother your faith? Of course not. Does it deny the 9^th chapter of Job? You don't even know! Has it put your eternal salvation in jeopardy? Goodness sakes, no.

"I'm glad I wasn't part of that, aren't you? I'm glad I didn't say and do such things in the name of God and the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ, condemning the idea that the earth moves around the sun. What I'm saying to you is, let's not make the same mistake today concerning another new scientific idea -- the theory of evolution."

- George H. Schweitzer, "The Creation/Evolution Controversy" (speech delivered at Furman University, Greenville, SC, 3/18/81)

E.T. BABINSKI

The "Inspiration" of the Bible, compared with Discoveries of Modern Astronomy

There is no mention in the Bible of "nine" planets, or that the earth is a "wandering star" like the other planets. According to Genesis 1:16 only two "great lamps" were created [the Hebrew term translated "lights" means literally, "lamps"]. There is no trace of the modern idea that each star in the universe is a "great lamp" like our own Sun. Rather, the Bible depicts "stars" as relatively small bodies, created after the earth and set in the firmament above it, and which all "fall" to earth at its end. Neither is there any trace in the Bible of the idea that planets other than the earth were created with "lamps or moons" to light their surfaces at night, nor any reason why they should. Nor any trace that the earth moves, though there is plenty of evidence that it does not, and that the sun, stars, and constellations, move daily and seasonally around the earth. We have only recently learned that we live on the periphery of one arm of one spiral galaxy, like hundreds of millions of other spiral galaxies. Astronomers have recently detected matter circling stars other than our own, have recently detected a Pulsar star with planets circling it, have recently detected a Jupiter-like planet circling a nearby star. Astronomers have recently learned about multitudes of incredibly dim galaxies. And they have recently detected four dark objects, several kilometers wide, circling our sun a little beyond Pluto. Many more probably lay out there which have yet to be detected. All these things were set in heaven to "light the earth?" Even things that don't produce light? There is no evidence that such "Biblical" reasoning is valid. In terms of the cosmos the reverse is true. You can't see but two other galaxies with the naked eye, and those are so distant, they look like very faint stars. Over a billion more galaxies (each containing a billion stars) are invisibly distant. All created to "light the earth?"

E. T. BABINSKI

The Sinfulness of Extraterrestrials

Catholic theologians disagree on sinfulness of extraterrestrials

According to a recent news release by Ecumenical News International, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian has called on his church to consider the possibility of the evangelization of extraterrestrial beings. This was prompted by the recent discovery (Oct. 1995) of a Jupiter-sized planet circling a star in the constellation Pegasus only 40 light-years away from earth (the planet has been named "51 Pegasus").

Piero Coda, a theology professor in Rome, told the Vatican, "If life were to be found on the planet, then it would also have been contaminated by original sin and would require salvation." However, a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University said that extraterrestrial beings might not need redemption."We know that earthmen sinned, but we know nothing of beings in other worlds," the unnamed professor said.

The Catholic evolutionist, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin addressed similar questions decades ago:

"A mankind which proclaims that it is alone, or in a special position, in the universe reminds us of the philosopher who claims to reduce the whole of the real to his own consciousness, so exclusively as to deny true existence to other men...But just as the human soul is not alone, but essentially legion, on the surface of the earth, so it is infinitely probable that the conscious layer of the cosmos is not confined to a single point (our mankind) but continues beyond the earth into other stars and other times...

"How, then, is it that, against all probability, this particular mankind was chosen as the center of the Redemption? And how, from that starting-point, can Redemption be extended from star to star?

"As far as I can see, this question is still unanswered. The idea of an earth chosen arbitrarily from countless others as the focus of Redemption is one that I cannot accept; and on the other hand the hypothesis of a special revelation, in some millions of centuries to come, teaching the inhabitants of the system of Andromeda that the Word was incarnate on earth, is just ridiculous...

"All the worlds do not coincide in time! There were worlds before our own, and there will be other worlds after it...Unless we introduced a relativity into time we should have to admit, surely, that Christ has still to be incarnate in some as yet unformed star?...And what, then, becomes of "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again" (Rom. 6:9)?

[Also, what becomes of Christ's "return" to the earth and the "creation of a new heavens and a new earth?" If life exists on other worlds, will Christ be returning only to our world? Why should all of "heaven" be "recreated" when Christ merely returns to earth? -- ED.]

"There are times when one almost despairs of being able to disentangle Catholic dogmas from the geocentrism in the framework of which they were born...

"When a theologian is confronted with the growing scientific probability of multiple 'centers of thought' distributed throughout the cosmos, he can immediately see two easy (though deceptive) ways of avoiding the problem, and they are all the more attractive in that he has already followed them in the past.

"He can decide either that, alone among all the inhabited planets, earth has known original sin and hen needed to be redeemed; or, accepting the hypothesis of a universal original sin, he can assume that the Incarnation was effected only on earth, the other mankinds being, in addition, duly 'informed' of it in some way (!?).

"Or, finally, he can rely on the odds (very high odds, too) against any contact ever being made, by way of direct experiment (because of excessive distance in space, or non-coincidence in time), between earth and other thinking stars, and so maintain, against all probability, that earth alone in the universe is inhabited. And this simply means digging in his heels and saying that 'the problem does not exist.'

"It calls for no great learning to see and feel that in the present state of our knowledge about the dimensions of the universe and nature of life:

"a. The first of these three solutions is scientifically 'absurd'-in as much as it implies that death (the theological index of the presence of original sin) might not exist at certain points in the universe-in spite of our certain knowledge that those points are subject to the same physicochemical laws as earth. (It is embarrassing, unless it was meant as a joke, to read in Time, Sept. 15, 1952, the advice given by a teacher of theology-Fr. Francis J. Connell, Dean of Theology-to be wary of pilots of 'flying saucers': if they landed from a planet not affected by original sin, they would be unkillable.)

"b. The second is 'ridiculous,' particularly when one considers the enormous number of stars to be 'informed' (miraculously?) and their distance from one another in space and time. [Indeed, we have trouble enough convincing earthlings of the "truth" of the Biblical narrative, how much more so people on other worlds? -ED.]

"c. And finally the third is 'humiliating'-in as much as it would be one more instance of the Church apparently taking refuge in the unverifiable to protect the dogma.

"The sudden enlargement, as an experiential fact, of the 'spiritual' dimensions of the universe means that now we have a difficulty to face in our faith; and if we are to have a dignified and rewarding way of neutralizing the difficulty, we absolutely must find something better than such loopholes. Where shall we find it?...

"In earlier times, until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation of the Fall and dogma of universal redemption. So long as people believed, as St. Paul himself did, in one week of creation and a past of 4,000 years-so long as people thought the stars were satellites of the earth, and that animals were there to serve man-there was no difficulty in believing a single man could have ruined everything, and that another man had saved everything."

- From Christianity and Evolution by Pierre Tielhard de Chardin, copyright © 1969 by Editions du Seuil; English translation copyright © 1971 by William Collins Sons & Co Ltd., and Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

E.T. BABINSKI

Henry Morris On Existence of Other Planets Circling Distant Stars

Henry Morris on the existence of other planets circling distant stars

"As far as distant stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no evidence either in science or Scripture, that any of them have planets."

- Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Bier Book House, 1984) p. 244

No evidence? Then try some less "distant" stars! As early as l984 (the year Morris' book was published) astronomers discovered that:

"Beta Pictoris wee one of several nearby stars embedded in clouds of dust-clouds that look very much like planetary systems in the act of formation. Furthermore, if it was simply a uniformly distributed disk of dust, then looking edge on through such a disk should block out most of Beta Pictoris' light. Since we can clearly see the star, the inner parts of the disk probably do not contain much dust-which is exactly what one would expect if the material had already condensed into planets."

- M. Mitchell Waldrop, "First Sightings," Science 85, June, 1985

A NEW SOLAR SYSTEM?

FIRST VISUAL EVIDENCE of a stellar disk outside our own solar system was recorded in April 1984 by astronomers at the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile. Beta Pictoris, a star about twice the size of the sun in the constellation Pictor, is seen within a huge, disk-shaped cloud of matter that may or may not contain planet-size objects. A black dot at the junction of supporting filaments eclipses the star, preventing light from flooding the image and enabling the disk to be seen. Though infrared sensing has detected a cloud of matter around the young star Vega, this may prove to be the first telescope image of an evolving solar system, only 50 light years away.

And with the aid of the Hubble telescope, rings of matter have been detected circling about half of a hundred stars examined in the nearby Orion nebula! These stars are relatively young and the size of our own Sun or smaller. (See cover articles in Science News, Astronomy and Sky and Telescope between 1994 and 1995.) There is also strong evidence that planets have been discovered circling a Pulsar star.

And, early in October, 1995, two Swiss astronomers said that they had discovered a planet about the size of Jupiter in the constellation Pegasus. The planet, named 51 Pegasus, is 40 light-years from Earth. (See Science News, "Finding Planets Around Ordinary Stars," Vol. 148, Oct. 21, 1995, p. 260.) The discovery of earth-sized planets still awaits finer detection devices, but the probability keeps increasing with each new discovery that earth-sized planets are out there, circling stars other than our own.

E. T. BABINSKI

Henry Morris Denies Geocentrism

Henry Morris' ingenious attempts at denying the bible's geocentrism

Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, in his book, The Biblical Basis For Modern Science (Baker Book House, 1984), has tried to uncover some Bible verses that depict the earth as moving, yet his inventive "interpretations" are a lot less convincing than the plain meanings that led Christians for centuries to teach that the earth does not move.

ATTEMPT #1: According to Morris a verse in the book of Job implies the rotation of the earth: "It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment." (Job 38:14, King James Version) Morris states, "The figure, in context, is of a clay vessel being turned on a wheel to receive the design impressed upon it by a seal or signet, like the earth as it turns into the dawning sun, gradually revealing the intricate features on its surface." (p. 165)

However, Morris' "context" is illusory. It hinges on the word "turns," which seems to only be found in the King James translation of that verse. I couldn't find another translation that uses the word "turns." Both the Revised Standard Version, and the New American Standard Version, translate this verse, "It is changed like clay under the seal; And they stand forth like a garment." The Amplified Bible states, "It is changed like clay into which a seal is pressed, and things stand out like a many-colored garment." The famous conservative Bible commentator, F. Delitzach, D.D, translated the verse, "That it changeth like the clay of a signet-ring." The liberal Anchor Bible commentator, Marvin H. Pope, translated the verse, "It changes..." Even the New International Version (a favorite with conservative Christians today) translates the verse, "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment."

Notice that either the King James translators mistranslated this particular verse in Job by employing the wrong word, viz., "turns," when it should have been "changes/takes shape." Or they used "turns" in the Old-English sense of milk "turns" sour, and, Jesus "turns" water into wine, and, meant, "It is turned so [changed/takes shape] as clay to the seal." In which case they were only agreeing with all the other translations cited above. In either case, Morris' "rotating vessel" context remains illusory.

The clay is "changed," or, "takes shape" under the seal = RSV, NASB, AB, NIV, KVJ(?). There is nothing about the clay being "turned" in the sense of "rotated," and hence nothing about a "vessel" or a "wheel."

People of the ancient Near East did press or roll seals on wet clay. But the clay was in the form of flat clay tablets. So if Morris wants to describe the true "context" of this verse in Job, it is of a flat stationary clay tablet, the "earth." And the seal being pressed or rolled across its surface, causes its features to stand out, like the "sun" moving across the heavens. "The cylinder was rolled on the wet clay of the tablet being sealed." [David Maltsberger, "Late Bronze Age Seals," in Field Notes: The Newsletter of Archaeology in Israel and the Near East, Vol. 2, no. 1, Jan./Feb. 1994; see also, Ancient Seals and the Bible, ed., L. Gorelick and Elizabeth Williams-Forte (Malibu: Undena, 1983).]

In summation, these facts "turn" upside down Morris' attempt to find a Bible verse that says the earth moves:

1. Job 38:14 says nothing about the clay moving, or being "turned." Especially not "as a vessel on a wheel [sic]." The clay is merely spoken of as being "changed," or it "takes shape."
2. Job 38:14 equates the earth with the clay, most likely a clay tablet, providing further evidence of the ancient belief that the earth did not move. While the seal which left an impression in the clay, and caused it to "change" or "take shape" did move, and that seal portrayed the sun (metaphorically speaking). Hence, Job 38:14 provides yet more evidence of geocentric imagery in the Bible!

Since I have demonstrated that Morris places undue stress upon a faulty "context" of this verse to make it look like it "teaches that the earth rotates." I'd like to stress some far more justifiable "contexts" to see how they stack up against modern science.

Since Job 38:14 most likely depicts the earth as a clay tablet, it is also, by implication, speaking of a flat earth. Now look at the immediately preceding verse.

Job 38:13 speaks of dawn grasping the earth by its "extremity or hem" (Heb. kanap; cf. Num. 15:38 and 1 Sam. 15:27) and shaking the wicked-or, the "wickedness of darkness" (AB) -- out of it. The picture is metaphorical, comparing the earth to a blanket or garment picked up at one end and shaken. This is immediately followed by the depiction of the earth as a clay tablet, whose surface is changed by the seal which is pressed on (or rolled across) it. After which, its "features stand out like those of a garment." Those two verses employ three flat metaphors for the earth, all in a row!

1. grabbing the "ends of the earth" like it was a blanket or garment being shaken;
2. a [flat] clay tablet; and
3. a [flat] surface of a garment whose color or pattern stands out.

Neither does the author of Job refrain from implying the earth's flatness in other passages. For instance, "[God's] measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea," "Who stretched the line on [the earth]?", and, "He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens (Job 11:9, 38:5, and 28:24). Not to forget all the other verses in Job, already mentioned above, that depict stars moving instead of the earth: God "leads forth" the constellations in "their season," instead of "leading forth" the earth in "its season." (Job 38:32) Therefore, all available evidence points to the author of Job viewing the earth as immobile...and flat.

Of course, the book of Job does state that "He hangs the earth on nothing (or, literally, without anything)" (26:7). But that does not say the earth moves, it says it is "hung by God," which implies no movement. It doesn't even say what the shape of the earth is. It only stresses the power of God in being able to "hang it." Ancient Egyptian iconography, for instance, depicts ka, a personal power, supporting a flat earth disc "on nothing" but ka's power -- "without anything" but ka supporting it. In another ancient Egyptian account, Khepra begins creation by conceiving a "[flat] standing place," hanging on nothing.

Also apropos of any discussion of the book of Job is the fact that later in the book, after Job has said, "He (God) hangs the earth upon nothing," God rebukes Job with a series of sarcastic questions that imply Job did - not know what he was talking about. God's rebuke further implies a flat earth: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?...On what were its bases sunk?...Have you understood (or examined) the expanse of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this!" (Job 38:4,6,18) (Compare Job 26:5-7 with Job 38:i6-18 for a series of three rebukes that God meted out to Job for speaking presumptuously on three specific matters which God says Job "did not see or know" anything about.)

Jeremiah, like the book of Job, declared that the mystery of the foundation of the earth was one that only God would ever know the answer to, "If the...foundations of the earth (can be) searched out below, then I will cast off...Israel." (Jer. 31:37). In other words, just as Israel will never be "cast off," the "foundations" of the flat-earth Hebrew cosmos are portrayed as remaining "unsearchable" or "unknowable."

Speaking of those "foundations," the ancient Hebrews were gravely unsettled each time their "firmly established" flat earth cosmos suffered an "earthquake." They viewed it as a sign of God's immense power and wrath, shaking heaven above and the flat earth below. The stars might even fall. After all, according to Genesis the stars were only "set" in the firmament above the earth after the earth was created, like little light fixtures "set" in the ceiling after the home has been built.

Although the occasional "shaking" of the earth during an earthquake inspired the ancient Hebrews to write about it, there is no evidence that they were ever inspired to write about the movement of the earth!

Likewise, there is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews were ever inspired to write about modern astronomical conceptions of the earth. They demonstrate no knowledge of the fact that the earth is merely one of nine planets (not even the largest planet), all spinning like tops and circling round the sun. Where is that in the Bible? Or a cosmos where it's more likely for earth-sized planets to fall into a star, than for all the "stars" to "tall to earth." The ancient Hebrews;, like the ancient Babylonians, were equally ignorant of such modern scientific notions. ("He [the god Marduk] created the (heavenly) places and fashioned the firm earth." ENUMA ELISH, ancient flat-earth Babylonian creation account, Tablet 7 verse 135)

Only after the Copernican Revolution were human poets "inspired" to compose verses depicting the brave new cosmos. See, for instance, "Poetic Responses to the Copernican Revolution" by Margaret M. Byard in Scientific American (June, 1977, p. 121-129.)

• "The Centre of our world's the lively
  
  light
  
  Of the warm sun...
  
  Mercury
  
  Next placed, and warmed more
  
  thoroughly by his rays...
  
  Then Venus
  
  nothing slow about him
  
  strays
  
  And next our Earth though seeming sad
  
  full sprightly plays.

" ...so our world's sun

Becomes a star elsewhere,

and doth

derive

Joint light with others, cheereth all

that won

In those dim duskish Orbs round other

suns that run."

- Henry More, "Democritus Platonissans" (1646)

• "This pendant world...Star of smallest Magnitude close by the Moon."

- John Milton, "Paradise Lost" (1688) ["Star of smallest Magnitude" refers to the earth. From the point of view of someone not on the earth, it would appear to be but another bright starry object in the sky, like the other planets appear to us.-ed.]

ATTEMPT #2: Morris' second attempt at denying the Bible's geocentrism is based on Luke 17:34-36, which he says implies "the rotation of the earth." He admits that this verse only implies rather than states outright that the earth moves. However, such an "implication" as we shall see, is incorrect. Besides, Morris ignores the numerous passages which unmistakably assert the immobility of the earth and assert that God moves, or commands the movements of, numerous heavenly objects that modern science {caches do not move "daily" and "seasonally" in relation to the earth.

Morris cites Luke 17:34-36, which speaks of Jesus' second coming, "In that night, there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women will be grinding together...Two men shall be in the field." "In other words," says Morris, "this great event will take place instantaneously at night, in the morning, and in the afternoon. Such a combination would be possible only on an earth in which day and night could be occurring simultaneously, and that means a rotating earth." (p. 247)

What Morris fails to notice is that Jesus' dictum that "No one knows the day or the hour" inspired Luke's multiple illustrations, including a bedtime illustration. Luke has simply mixed together three distinct possibilities and is not stressing their "simultaneity." Luke is saying, "Be ready at all times for the coming of the Son of Man, no matter what you may be doing, working in the field, sleeping in bed, or grinding meal." For, depending on when it happens, the Son of Man might arrive at an early hour of the day, a later hour of the day, or at night."No one knows the day or the hour."

Besides, the passage in Luke that Morris makes so much of is repeated almost identically in Matthew 24:40-41, which mentions only "men in the field" and "women grinding," i.e., activities that may be performed at the same hour of the day when Christ comes. The point that the two gospel authors are trying to make is not in reference to astronomy but to apocalyptic expectations. According to them, "Christ's return" will reveal a wide separation between hearts joined together by toil or friendship: Two men may share a bed together, two women work as closely as at the handle of one hand mill, and "one shall be taken, the other left." Certainly no more can be made of Luke's inclusion of a bedtime illustration than Matthew's exclusion of one. Was Luke's Gospel "more astronomically inspired"than Matthew's?

If, as Morris' book insists, modern astronomy is "Biblically based," then why can't he find a single verse that states the earth moves? Why does he ignore the many verses to the contrary? And why were so many Christian Biblical interpreters so hostile for so many centuries to the theory of heliocentrism [=a sun-centered system] even though they had the Bible and the Holy Spirit to "lead them into all truth?"

Henry Morris is trying to get out of a tight spot. He's stuck between a rock and a hard place, because he won't abandon his belief that the Bible is "the basis for modern science," and at the same time he accepts all the scientific evidence in favor of heliocentrism. So, he has to ignore the many embarrassing geocentric verses in the Bible, and invent "heliocentric contexts" for one or two verses to try and "prove" the Bible's "scientific accuracy" -- "implications" that only he "sees." Are we to believe that men, like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, who for centuries before him studied the Bible and who were led by the Holy Spirit, were all unable to "see" the marvelous heliocentric truths in Job and Luke that Morris was able to find? Indeed, even Galileo was unable to discover the proper "implications" of such verses, though he certainly sought diligently for some support from the Bible for his heliocentric views. Maybe what Galileo needed was a King James Bible, like the one Morris used, so he too could misinterpret the meaning of the word "turned?"

Morris does all this in his attempt to try and make the Bible "appear" heliocentric. If I was a Bible believer, I'd say that Morris is in effect "adding and subtracting" to the plain Words of God, just as he blames "liberals" for doing.

EDWARD T. BABINSKI

• "All who maintain that the Sun is immovable, and that it is the Earth which moves, sufficiently show that the Scriptural and Scientific Account of Natural Things seldom agree."

- Matthew Tindal (A Deist, writing in 1730)

The Bible's Geocentrism

"Still, I don't like it; I can't approve of it; (2 Sam. 22:8) I have always thought it most regrettable that earnest and ethical Thinkers like ourselves should go scuttling through space in this undignified manner. Is it seemly that I, at my age, should be hurled with my books of reference, and bed clothes, and hot-water bottle, across the sky at the unthinkable rate of nineteen miles a second? As I say, I don't at all like it. This universe of astronomical whirligigs makes me a little giddy.

"That God should spend His eternity (which might be so much better employed) in spinning countless Solar Systems, and skylarking, like a great child, with tops and teetotums-is not this a serious scandal? I wonder what all our circumgyrating Monotheists really do think of it?"

- Logan Pearsal Smith, "Vertigo" from All Trivia

I'll tell you what they think of it! For most of mankind's history, Monotheists imagined themselves as having two feet planted on firm ground-terra firma. The view presented in the Bible is no exception. The Bible depicts the earth an firm, immovable, the "foundation" of creation:

1. "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth." (Heb. 1:10)
2. The sun, moon, and stars were created after the firm "foundation of the earth" was laid. (Gen. 1:9-18)
3. "He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever." (Ps. 104:5)
4. "The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)
5. "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them." (I Sam. 2:8)
6. "It is I who have firmly set its pillars." (Ps. 75:3)
7. "Who stretched out the heavens...and established the world." (Jer. 10:12)

The Bible never depicts the earth as moving, just "shaken," as in an "earthquake":

1. "The earth quaked, the foundations of heaven were trembling."
2. "The earth quakes, the heavens tremble." (Joel 2:10)
3. "I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place." (Isa. 13:13)
4. "There was a great earthquake...and the stars of the sky fell...as if shaken from a tree." (Rev. 6:12,13)

Luther and Calvin agreed that the Bible states the earth does not move, and also that the sun does move:

"He (God) can command the sun not to rise." (Job 9:7) Rather than, "He can command the earth to stop (moving/spinning)." That God would direct such a command at the sun rather than the earth, implies an unmistakably geocentric perspective. Likewise, Martin Luther pointed out that "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth," since the earth was presumed to be at rest at all times. (Josh. 10:12)

The Bible also states: "...the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again." (Eccles. 1:5; NASB) "Rising" and "setting" may be easy to explain away due to one's earth-bound perspective, but speaking of the sun "hastening to its place" so that it may rise again, is not so easy to explain away. It means the author of Ecclesiastes believed that the sun moved daily around the earth. Compare Psalm 19:4-6, "In [the heavens] He has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices like a strong man to run its course, its rising from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them."

Likewise, the Bible states that stars "course" [move] through the heavens, "From their courses they fought against Sisera." (Judges 5:20, NASB) God "leads forth" the stars, "The One who leads forth their host by number...Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power not one [star] is missing." (Isaiah 40:26, NASB) Constellations are "led forth" in their season: "Can you bind the chains of the Pleadies or loose the cords of Orion? Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, And guide the Bear with her satellites? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth?" (Job 38:31-33, NASB)

Compare such descriptions with modern astronomy, which teaches that the sun and stars only appear to move daily and seasonally around the earth. This appearance of movement is due to the earth's daily rotation and yearly revolutions around the sun. So, modern astronomy considers it erroneous to speak of the sun "hastening to its place," or, "running its course;" erroneous to speak of God "commanding" the sun "not to rise;" erroneous for Joshua to "command" the sun to "stand still;" and erroneous to speak of stars being "led forth," or constellations of stars being "guided" and "led forth" "in their season."

Modern astronomy teaches that it is the earth that "hastens to" spin round each day and that "courses" round the sun, it is the earth that God must "command" not to move and that Joshua should have commanded to "stand still," and, it is the earth that God must "lead forth," and "guide" in "its season."

Geocentrists like Dr. Bouw of the Society of Biblical Astronomy wonder how their fellow Bible believers can ignore such plain language depicting the earth's immobility and the daily (and seasonal) movement of the sun and stars, especially when the text declares that God is doing the moving (and able to halt the motion) of the sun and stars. Does the Bible depict God "commanding" and "leading forth" things that don't really move? That doesn't sound like a demonstration of God's "might," instead it sounds like mighty deceptive language for God to have "inspired." That's kind of like telling people that once they enter their car and step on the gas, "God leads forth the trees which speed by on the roadside...Because of the greatness of Hit; might and the strength of His power not one is missing!" (cf. Isaiah 40:26). Therefore, geocentrists argue: "How deceptive of God to speak in such a manner unless He meant what he said." To ignore such plain verses of Scripture is to "ignore God!"

Of course, young-earth creationists say that to "ignore" the literal truth of Genesis and "creation in six days" is also to "ignore God!"

E. T. BABINSKI

The Holy Heavens

Today, most Bible believers do not believe that God lives in the heavens directly overhead. But right up to the beginning of the Reformation, God and the heavenly/spiritual realm were believed to lie far closer to the earth, relatively speaking, and occupy the space around it in a most definite sense. (See the cover of this issue for a picture of Martin Luther's view!) Reading the Bible, it's easy to see how one could arrive at such a conclusion:

"He [God] sits above...the earth, and its inhabitants look like grasshoppers" (Isa. 40:22). If God wasn't fairly close, then why use "grasshoppers" as an analogy, since that implies a nearer proximity than, say, looking down on "ants." And in the same verse it says that God "stretches out the heavens like a curtain, like a tent to dwell in" (Isa 40:22). Cozy imagery of your typical sky-God dwelling above the earth. Certainly not "light-years" away!

1. "He bowed the heavens and came down." (2 Sam. 22:10)
2. "The Lord came down [from heaven]." (Gen. 11:5)
3. Elijah was lifted up by a whirlwind to heaven (2 Kings 2:11).
4. Angels ascended and descended on a ladder reaching to heaven (Gen. 28:12). The ancients also pictured angels with bird-like wings flying through the earth's atmosphere to a "heaven" lying directly above the earth rather than through light-years of space that lacks an atmosphere and where bird-like appendages would prove useless.
5. "Manna," food supplied to the Hebrews in the wilderness, is depicted as falling from heaven.
6. Angels who told of Jesus' birth "went away from [the shepherds] into heaven" (Luke 2:15).
7. A "star [of heaven]...went on before the [wise men], until it came and stood over where the Child was" (Mat. 2:9). Such a star assumes a rather near proximity to the earth. How else could it stand unmistakably above a single house, rather than stand above a whole city or country?
8. God spoke out of heaven at Jesus' baptism and the heavens ripped opened and a dove descended out of heaven.
9. Later at "the ascension," "[The resurrected Jesus] was lifted up...and a cloud received him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9), whereupon Jesus took his seat "in the heavens...in the true tabernacle [tent], which the Lord pitched" (Heb. 8:1,2).
10. And Jesus will return in the sky "seated at the right hand of Power" with the "clouds of heaven" (Mat. 26:64)."The Lord will descend from heaven...and we shall be caught up...in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:16, 17).
11. "...a door standing open in heaven, and the...voice...said, 'Come up here"' (Rev. 4:1).
12. "...and there was a great earthquake...and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. And the sky was split apart...and [men] hid themselves in caves...and said to the mountains...hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne." (Rev. 6:12-16)
13. The "heavenly city," the "New Jerusalem" "descends" to earth from "heaven." (Rev.)
14. "God is in heaven, and you are on the earth" (Eccles. 5:2).
15. "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; But the earth He has given to the sons of men" (Ps. 115:16).

Further corroboration of this ancient view of the relatively "near proximity" of God and of the heavenly/spiritual realm, is not hard to find. The Babylonians built towers, called ziggurats, reaching toward heaven to attract the sky gods' attention (compare Gen. 11:5). In similar fashion, Abraham ascended a mountain to sacrifice his son to God. Moses spoke to God after ascending a mountain (Ex. 19:20). Jerusalem was built on a holy hill nicknamed "Mt. Zion." Jesus was transfigured on a mountain top. And the resurrected Jesus was seen on a "mountain which Jesus had designated" in Galilee (Mat. 28:16), and/or is said to have ascended into heaven from Mount Olive (Acts 1) near Jerusalem.

Based on the authority of many such Bible verses, the heavenly/spiritual realm was believed to lie "above" the earth and so near that climbing a mountain brought you relatively "nearer" to God. Of course, we know today that climbing a mountain only brings you infinitesimally "nearer" to the nearest star which still lies several million to several billion miles away.

According to Robert Ingersoll, "The telescope did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of our Lord infinitely absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem, and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds." In fact, if Jesus did rise up to heaven through the clouds as Luke says, even if he reached the speed of light, he wouldn't be out of our own galaxy yet, and there are about a billion other galaxies out there.

According to C.S. Lewis, the ancients, right up to the Reformation, had an absolute sense of Up and Down. In both a flat-earth and geocentric cosmology the earth was the solid center, and movement was either Down to the earth From heaven, or Up from the earth Toward heaven.

The ancients never suspected that the earth was just as much a heavenly object" as all the stars they "looked up at." They never suspected that the earth was an integral part of the "heavens," sailing amongst all the other "heavenly bodies." If they had, then they would never have "worshipped" the objects "above" their heads. Nietzsche expressed it thusly, "So long as thou feelest the stars as an 'above thee,' thou lackest the eye of the discerning one" ("The Sage as Astronomer" in Beyond Good and Evil).

The Hebrews envisioned a geocentric universe the same way that other ancient cultures did, and had to be warned, many times, not to worship what lay "above" them, i.e., "the sun, moon, and stars, all the host of heaven" (Deut. 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:5; 23:5; Jer. 7:18; 19:13; 44:17,19,25). Naturally, if they had known that the earth was moving amongst the stars, it they had known that the earth was merely one of nine planets circling round an unimposing star (a star that was not the only "great light" in the cosmos), a star that was sailing around a galaxy full of such stars, then they would not have been so tempted to "worship" the host of heaven. They would have realized that the stars only appeared to lie "above" them.

In the case of the Hebrews, who had to be told not to worship "all the host of heaven," those heavens still remained uniquely "holy" since they lay nearer to God, and/or, God's dwelling place."The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth He has given to the sons of men" (Ps. 115:16). Hence the fear that some Bible believers felt when a man first planted a flag on the moon! "The earth" was "given to man," but not the heavens, not the moon, etc.! That was "the Lord's realm." And if merely building a "tower that reached to heaven" (Gen. 11 -- the tower of Babel story) moved God to "come down" and take drastic action, then what about building a rocket that "reached to heaven," a rocket named after the pagan god, Apollo!

For thousands of years (right up to the Reformation), pagans, Jews and Christians agreed that the stars lay "above" man and "nearer" to God, while the Christians added that the earth was a "sink of impurity" with hell lying at the earth's center. Such a view was inspired by Biblical passages that spoke of the heavens above the earth as the holy abode of God and angels: Ps. 115:16; Eccles. 5:2; Gen. 11:5,7; 28:12; Isa. 40:22; Heb. 8:1,2; 2 Kings 2:11; 2 Sam. 22:10; Luke 2:15; Mat. 23:22; 26:64; Acts 1:9), with sheol, hades, etc., the land of the dead, lying beneath the earth (Job 11:8; Ps. 71:20; 88:3,6; 1 Sam. 28:8,13,15; Amos 9:2,3; Philip. 2:10;
Rev. 5:13).

Naturally, when Copernicus and Galileo presented the theory that the earth moved, people rejected it violently with arguments like those below (see also the strictly Biblical arguments featured in the articles that follow this one!):

"The planets, the sun, the stars, all belong to one species-namely that of 'stars' [bright objects moving above the earth]. It seems, therefore, to be a grievous wrong to place the earth, which is a sink of impurity, among these heavenly bodies, which are pure and divine things."

"Angels make Saturn, Jupiter, the sun, etc., turn round. I! the earth revolves, it must also have an angel in the center to set it in motion, but only devils live there, it would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to the earth."

Today, of course, we know that the sun, planets, and stars, lying "above the earth" are no "nearer to God" or "nearer to a heavenly/spiritual realm" than we are on planet earth. And some people even dare to believe that perhaps God has given man not just the "earth" but also the "heavens" too, to explore.

E. T. BABINSKI