?
^ ^Jhe d3ille Scienti^icallu (Correctl
FIFTH IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES BY HARRY RIMMER, SC.D.
Reproduced by permission from the book T h e H a r m o n y of S cie n ce a n d S criptu re Copyright by Research Science Bureau, Inc.
M ANY years ago, the writer sat in a classroom and engaged in a friendly debate with one of his professors in that school. Holding that the Bible was the Word of God, the writer, then a student, was frequently challenged by this instructor who was a confirmed infidel. We could count on a friendly sparring match almost any time this particular class convened. The professor insistently sought for fal lacies and mistakes in the Scripture, which he gleefully advanced in the course of classroom discussion. On this occasion we remember coming into the classroom and being warned by the twinkle of delight in the good doc tor’s eye, we felt sure that he had one that day that was unusually satisfactory to himself. Scarcely had the class convened, when the professor opened up saying, “ Do you still believe the Bible is the Word of God?” We laughed and said, “Yes, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but I am not being still about it.” With his usual reply, the doctor said, “How can you accept the Bible as the Word of God, when it contains such glaring scientific errors?” We reminded the professor that he had not been able to establish any of those errors so far, and asked what he had now. He replied by saying, “How about that cytological error that Paul the Apostle made in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians?” Confessing ignorance of the error, we asked the professor to cite it, and he read these words, “ All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, an other of fishes, and another of birds.” Very specifically that passage does say that there i s ' a different kind of flesh for men than there is for beasts, and that the flesh of fishes differs from the flesh of birds, and each differs from the other. We were willing to concede the professor’s point, that the Bible there stated a. biological and cytological difference between the cell structure of the various great phyla. The professor was somewhat amused when we replied that we agreed with Paul the Apostle that there was a speci fic and scientific difference between the flesh of one great species and another. In some surprise the instructor asked, Page Six
“Have you come this far in your stud ies, and have not learned the continu ity theory?” “ Oh yes,” we said, “we have learned the continuity theory, but we are not giving up the Bible for any theory. It is facts upon which we depend.” The professor warmly insisted that the continuity theory was an established fact. Since we are speaking now of the ar chaic days of biology, something more than twenty years ago, it might be wise to remind the reader of this famed con tinuity theory. This idea was predicated upon the supposition that all cell struc ture was the same. Early investigators discovered that the cells of all living creatures contained a basic substance called protoplasm. They jumped to the conclusion that all protoplasm was the same, therefore, that all cells were the same. Thus they built up the evolution ary hypothesis that by a continuity of life transmission from one form to an other, the various species had arrived through an evolvular process. We can still remember the warmth of the discussion •that followed the criti cism of Paul’s statement, which repudi ated this continuity theory. The professor said, “ The continuity theory is a fact.” We replied, “ I don’t believe it. I believe that there is a specific and scientific difference between the basic structure of every two groups of living creatures.” He added his usual crushing retort, “ Prove it.” We honestly said, “ That’s the trouble; I can’t prove it. But, Professor, after all, I don’t have to prove it, because you agree with Paul and me, and admit that we are right.” In stuttering chagrin, the professor said, “ But I don’t agree; I am standing here denying it.” Trusting that his sense of humor would stand the strain, we took a chance and retorted, “ Yes, that’s what you say now, but actions speak louder than words. You do agree with us that all flesh is not the same flesh. For instance, let us assume that you ate your dinner today in the Palace Hotel and. ordered quail on toast, for which you were charged. If they served you codfish, you would yell loudly enough to be heard across the Bay of San Francisco.” Somewhat bewildered, the good doc tor said, “What does that prove?”
Not having any credits left in that class and thus being able to take tre mendous chances, we replied, “ That proves that while you might not know the difference between a fish and a bird, your stomach and your taste buds do, and it seems, then, as though we have more sense under our belts than we have under our hats.” The argument broke up in an up roar, and neither of us ever convinced the other. How we wish that the doctor were alive today' We would like to go to him in a sweet, kindly spirit and pointing at him an index finger, we would like to say, “Aha!” with all the emphasis that could be put upon that ejaculation. For now, according to the findings of modern science, Paul the Apostle should be classified as a very credible cytologist! You may perhaps have read of that interesting reagent produced by the Parke Davis labora tories and named, upon its introduction, “Anti-human Precipitin.” This has been largely used by the scientific sections of criminal investigation departments in all of our big city police systems. If one had a bit.of bone, or blood, or flesh, or skin, or organic substance that was alive or had been alive, no matter how old or dessicated that substance might be, and one desired to know from what living creature it had come, the method would be comparatively simple. There was a time when murderers, faced with the evidence of a blood-stained gar ment, had some ability to evade justice by maintaining that they had killed a rabbit or a chicken or some other meat animal, and the law could not prove the contrary. Those days are gone forever. If we had dried blood, the stain of blood, or live blood, and we put it into the test tube and added the anti-human precipitin, we would get an almost in stant reaction which said, “ This is ani mal” or “ This is human.” The same is true of all the cell struc ture of the human body. This reagent will not tell the difference between two kinds of animals. It will not tell the dif ference between two varieties of man, but it will instantly and infallibly indi cate whether the once living matter which is under investigation came from an animal or from a human being. If the in dication shows that it is human, there (Continued on Page 20) T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker