Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
November 12, 1959

The Bible Approves Science

Robert C. Welch, Birmingham, Alabama

The Bible is not a book on science; but it does not contradict any scientific field or scientific fact. It is not exactly correct to say that the Bible agrees with science, because the statement implies that if they disagreed we would have to accept science and reject the Bible. It is also incorrect to speak of science proving the Bible or that the Bible is proved by science; this implies that there would be reason to doubt the Bible if science did not corroborate the statements of the Bible. All of the interpretations given of biblical statements by would-be friends and by avowed enemies are not to be gullibly accepted as the real teaching of the Bible; if so, we would find ourselves accepting interpretations that were given to harmonize with theories which have later been proved by science to be false. In the same line, the Bible is not to be forced by interpretations into agreement with the theories which science uses as tools to discover new principles of fact. There are many theories concerning the origin of things which cannot be proved; one may be more acceptable than the others, but they cannot be proved. Therefore, such theories about the origin and evolution of things are not to be accepted as proof against the positive statements of the Bible. It is written for all men to comprehend, therefore its expressions will not be couched in technical terms which the scientist may use. The Bible approves all that is real science.

The Law Of Reproduction

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:24,25.)

This is a simple statement of the law of reproduction of living things stated in popular terms. Men of science have depended upon this law in their determination of what succeeding generations of animals, plants and men will be. They depend upon it in developing the desired characteristics in crossbreeding of animals and hybridization of plants. It was stated in a more elaborate form by Mendel, 1822-84. Since that time it has been called Mendel's law, and to it have been added many subordinate rules, all couched in highly technical terms. It is taught as if Mendel were the discoverer of these facts of nature; but they were revealed thousands of years before by the writer of the book of Genesis.

Furthermore, intervening historical records show that people were aware of the law as stated in Genesis. This is evident in the command against the sowing of two kinds of seed together. To keep the characteristics of each kind intact they were not to be mixed, for the mixing would produce a hybrid with the characteristics of each mixed. "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole fruit be forfeited, the seed which thou hast sown, and the increase of the vineyard." (Deut. 22:9.) In these days, though hybrid strains are developed by such mixing in the sowing, at the same time they also plant fields with the pure unmixed seed to continue to keep the original strains intact.

This same law of Genesis is also recognized later in the law concerning the union of close relatives. Men now learnedly talk about the offspring of such union inheriting too many of the weak and undesirable features of the parents. They will refer to the law of Mendel. But it was actually stated in Genesis and further and subsequently specifically amplified in the restriction against incest (Lev. 18:6-18.)

Contradictory Evolution Theory

Scientists teach this law even though they do attribute it to the wrong origin. They recognize it and use it in the field of development of plants and animals; and use it as a basic principle of sociological, physiological and psychological phenomena. At the same time some of them will turn to the common evolution theory which directly contradicts it. They declare according to this theory that all of the complex and varied kinds of living organisms have developed from one simple organism. If that be true (and it is not but is only a theory), then Mendel's law is a complete falsehood. But Mendel's law has been known and used since the book of Genesis was written.

Even if men today or tomorrow should develop what they classify as a new species of organism, nothing has been gained in opposition to the law of reproduction of Genesis. That book does not attempt to classify all species; such classification is the production of such men; and these men will have only developed certain characteristics to be found either active or latent in the original organisms with which they started their experiment. The law of Genesis still holds, and they but take advantage of it, that living creatures bring forth after their kind.