July 1927
T h e K i n g ’ s B u s i n e s s
428
Some Scientific Fallacies Exposed B y D r . H arry R immer a - » . ( R e s e a r c h Science Bureau)
â TREMENDOUS and widespread interest in archaeology is manifestèd all over the world in these recent years, and men are no longer con tent to study the written history of man, and speculate about what went before. So the spade of the research scientist is watched with a keener ever before, of each new discovery as fast as it is made. This is personally very gratifying to the writer, who has been a devotee of archaeology for years, and who has contributed: considerable to the question of the antiquity of man. Like every other careful and earnest scientist, however, the writer decries that sensational spirit that seems to delight in wild and unproven guesses concerning ages and cultures of various races, and longs for that day of widespread intelligence that will follow this present period of specülâtion. Of especial interest is the progress of archaeological investigation in the land of Palestine, and the ancient country of Egypt. The place of the birth: of, monotheism ; the land where Judaism and Christianity, alike arose, must ever be the focal point of historical and scientific interest, J'he following clipping came to me from a reader of the daily press who was much upset and whose faith was troubled because this expedition had found a tremendous civilization dated 3,500 B. C., when he himself believed that creation itself dates from about 4,000 B. C. ! This, of course, is an error of enthusiasm and ignor ance. The Bible neither states nor implies the traditional date of 4004 B. G. as the creation date. Nor does this find in U r of the Chaldees offer any obstacle to the deep est faith in the accuracy of the Bible. Ur, from whence Abraham heard the call of God, now contributes scien tific evidence of the high crest of civilization and thé development of writing fifteen hundred years before the day of Abraham. Let the modernist" critics “explain” that away ! A C onfirmation of F aith The daily papers of April 10 carried this announce ment :
to lay aside his stone weapons, this ancient race was pro ducing this fine, example of the goldsmith’s art. “It would have been a marvel of design and workmanship” in the twentieth century: but it is 5,500 years old. What about the evolution of man, and the advance of primitive culture in the light of such statements as these? But note carefully that the age 3,500 B. C. is not Scientifically established; it is one more scientific guess. “The difference in level and change in writing both demand a considerable lapse of time, and the lower graves must be as early as 3,500 B. C.”—-thus commented Mr.. Woolley. But why must be? Do we not know that objects of the same age and culture are liable by intrusion to varying depths ? There has been too much ioose guessing on the time element because of varying strata to accept any more of them on such flimsy evidence as this. The date is not here proved. Not that it is impossible or even improb able; we just maintain that it is not demonstrated by evi dence. D ating D ocuments by G uess W ork The dating of ancient documents, as the modern stu dent knows, is to be taken at best with a large grain of salt. In order to procure respect for their vast antiquity the ancient races frequently “doctored” their documents, and falsified the dates in a boasting spirit. The early archaeologists fell into the error of accepting these dates, but later they learned better, and corrected themselves. As an instance, the scholar Mariette, in 1898, accepted as the date of the founding of the first Egyptian Dynasty, by Menes, the year 5004 B. C. Petrie, in 1906, accepted the date 5510 B. C., but in 1926; These dates were cor rected to be not earlier than 3400 B. C. Here are two thou sand years lopped off Egyptian antiquity by a little care ful deletion of the lying bo,asts of ancient deceivers. How odd that men will doubt every word of God’s revelation, but accept with an unquestioning credulity every syllable from a sun burned brick of clay, that attests itself as the work of the hands of fallible men! This is not an exceptional case, as a brief comparison of the records will show. In .1898, Mariette accepted the year 4235 B. C., as the beginning year of the Fourth Dy nasty, on the clearest documentary evidence, while Petrie in 1906 accepted for the same Dynasty the date 4731 B. C. But in 1925 these dates were corrected to 2980 B. C. on data that was discovered from contemporary peoples who told the truth in humility. Similarly, and of intense interest in the discussion, and of particular bearing on this case, is the error of the scholar Hilprecht, who in 1902 accepted the earliest dynasties of Ur as dating from the years 4000 B. C. to 3750 B. C. These dates were changed in 1925,- however, to the more recent ones of 3200 B. C. to 2900 B. C., but the archaeologists in the above clipping are still tangled in the error of Hilprecht, apparently unaware of the more recent dates now accepted. So much for the possibility of scientific fallacy in the report of this great find. The value of the find itself is incalculable; but the worth of the evidence is not enhanced
interest and appreciation on the part of the layman than
“Objects 2,000 years older and ‘rivaling in artis tic merit and skill in craftsmanship’ the treasures of Tutankhamen havé been, found by the joint expedi tion of the British museum and of the museum of the University of Pennsylvania at Ur of the Chal dees in Mesopotamia. “This was revealed in a report from C. Leonard Woolley, director of the university museum today. The expedition closed its excavations at Ur for the season on Feb. 19. Clay tablets bearing the names of kings unrecorded in history, and indications that they had ruled as early as .3500 B, C, were among the discoveries.”
There is nothing in this clipping to disturb the faith of the true believer, and much to confirm that faith ! How odd it is, after we have heard so much about “evolutionary progress,” and the “more recent races” being marked by “their superior culture,” to note that the finest example of the art of the goldsmith is this one recovered from a civ ilization 5,500 years old ! More than five thousand years before the American Indian was persuaded by gun powder
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker