SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY

The opponents of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch maintain that it is characterized by inaccuracies and errors, and that, therefore, it cannot be the production of Moses. In using this argument they seem to be almost ready to assert his infallibility. At least, much of their reasoning on this point is irrelevant, except on the hypothesis that he was divinely and plenarily inspired. We now, however, take up the argument drawn from the accuracy of the Pentateuch in favor of its Mosaic authorship. We do not insist that the books which compose it, as we now have them, are free from error; but we maintain that these books are characterized by an accuracy far above all other ancient books, — an accuracy, indeed, that indicates that the author was guided by superhuman wisdom. This proposition, if established, will carry conviction to most minds that God and Moses were the authors of these books, as mankind have so long believed.

The account of creation in Genesis is eminently sober, truth-like, and accurate. We are not going to attempt to demonstrate that it is perfectly accurate. This cannot be done in the present state of human knowledge, though we confidently expect science to do this hereafter. But even now it is shown that the Mosaic account of the creation in respect to accuracy is far above every other cosmogony. The Mosaic cosmogony is, indeed, the only one that any intelligent man believes, or can believe. It is admired even by skeptical scientists for its remarkable accuracy and its deep insight into nature. In proof that it is thus admired, we quote the German scientist Haeckel, as follows:

"The Mosaic history of creation, since in the first chapter of Genesis it forms the introduction to the Old Testament, has enjoyed, down to the present day, general recognition in the whole Jewish and Christian world of civilization. Its extraordinary success is explained, not only by its close connection with Jewish and Christian doctrines, but also by the simple and natural chain of ideas which runs through it, and which contrasts favorably with the confused mythology of creation current among most of the other ancient nations. First, the Lord God creates the earth as an inorganic body; then he separates light from darkness, then water from the dry land. Now the earth has become inhabitable for organisms, and plants are first created, animals later, and among the latter the inhabitants of the water and the air first, afterwards the inhabitants of the dry land. Finally, God creates man, the last of all organisms, in his own image and as the ruler of the earth.

"Two great and fundamental ideas, common also to the non-miraculous theory of development, meet us in this Mosaic hypothesis of creation with surprising clearness and simplicity — the idea of separation or differentiation, and the idea of progressive development or perfecting. Although Moses looks upon the results of the great laws of organic development (which we shall later point out as the necessary conclusions of the doctrine of descent) as the direct actions of a constructing Creator, yet in his theory there lies hidden the ruling idea of a progressive development and a differentiation of the originally simple matter. We can, therefore, bestow our just and sincere admiration on the Jewish law-giver's grand insight into nature and his simple and natural hypothesis of creation without discovering in it a socalled 'divine revelation.' That it cannot be such, is clear from the fact that two great fundamental errors are asserted in it, namely: first, the geocentric error that the earth is the fixed central point of the whole universe, round which the sun, moon, and stars move; and, secondly, the anthropocentric error that man is the premeditated aim of the creation of the earth, for whose service alone all the rest of nature is said to have been created."¹

In regard to the two errors thus charged on Moses, we remark: (1) That the geocentric theory is not contained in his account of creation. There is not a word in it about the sun, moon, and stars moving round the earth. (2) He does, however, set forth the anthropocentric idea, and is justified by the facts. Man is master of all the lower animals and the subduer of the earth. He is pressing the elements and forces of nature more and more into his service. If the earth and nature were not made for man, he is an egregious usurper. The anthropocentric theory is true, and Moses is right, notwithstanding Haeckel's assumption to the contrary It is not strange that this skeptical scientist should endeavor to counteract his own commendation of the Mosaic cosmogony as a testimony to its divine inspiration; for it is highly improbable, scarcely credible indeed, that any merely human author in ancient times should conceive and indite so admirable an account of creation as our skeptical professor admits the first chapter of Genesis to be— "simple and natural chain of ideas"; "surprising clearness and simplicity"; "grand insight into nature"; "simple and natural hypothesis of creation"; "contrasts favorably with the confused mythology of creation current among most of the other ancient nations"; commanding the "just and sincere admiration" of the skeptical scientist, and, above all, so remarkably harmonious, as is admitted, with the teachings of modern science.

The Mosaic account of creation embraces the following points, accepted by modern scientists:

1. That the heavens and the earth — all things, nature, the universe, had a beginning.

2. That nature, the creation, is a consistent whole.

3. The existence of things at first in a state of chaos, in which there was neither light nor life.

4. That the bringing of the chaotic materials into a state of order and beauty was a progressive work.

5. The existence of light independent of the sun.

6. The formation of continents by the emergence of land from the water.

7. The existence of vegetable before animal life.

8. That the seas swarmed with life before land animals appeared.

9. That fishes, birds, beasts, and reptiles all appeared on the earth before the creation of man.

10. That man appeared as the head and master of all the lower animals.

These and other scientific truths are crowded into one short chapter. That first chapter of Genesis, like the decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount, for brevity and comprehensiveness, is unparalleled by anything outside of the Bible. Though its aim, like that of the rest of the Pentateuch and of the whole Bible, is not to teach science, but religion and morality, yet here we have more scientific truth presented, in an unscientific way, than can be found within the same space anywhere else; and so accurate is the whole presentation, so conformed to all that modern science has discovered and demonstrated, that the only way the skeptical German professor has of meeting the argument derived from it in favor of supernatural inspiration is to charge upon it the geocentric and anthropocentric doctrines, the latter of which, however, it teaches correctly, and the former of which it does not teach at all.

Now, how did the Hebrew cosmogonist learn all these scientific truths? How was he enabled to describe so accurately the progressive series of gradations in the world's formation as to strike the modern scientist with surprise and admiration? Whence all this scientific knowledge in the author of Genesis, when there was no scientific knowledge anywhere else?

It is noticeable, further, that the first chapter of Genesis reveals profound knowledge and insight at the very points about which science knows nothing and has nothing to say. One of these is the origin of matter — the elements of which things are composed. Science maintains that no particle of matter ever ceases to exist, but knows nothing and says nothing as to how particles of matter came into existence. But here Genesis comes in and declares that God created them — created all things in the beginning. Science cannot tell how life began on the earth. It teaches that the earth was at one time red-hot, and afterward cooled so as to render life on it possible. But how did living things begin? Spontaneous generation has been demonstrated to be an unscientific dogma. Life on our earth comes only from life. Then, when there was no living thing on earth, not even a seed, how could life originate? Science is again struck dumb; but Genesis answers by declaring that plants grew out of the earth at the creative fiat of the living God. But how did the animals originate? Did some of the plants develop into animals, and thus furnish a starting-point for the animal species? To this question science gives no answer. Scientists, many of them, probably most of them, do indeed accept the hypothesis that species have been derived from species — the higher from the lower, and the lower from the lowest. But whence the lowest species? The Darwinian theory is, that all existing species have been derived from a few primordial forms; probably from one.² But no account is given of the origin of those few primordial forms, or that one primordial form from which all existing species are supposed to have descended. If a primordial form were mere dead matter, no living thing could be derived from it. If it were a living form, whence came it.-* To account for the origin of animal life science and scientists have nothing to propose, unless it be the exploded and discredited dogma of spontaneous generation; but the author of Genesis bridges the chasm between dead matter and animal life by declaring that living creatures were produced from the waters and the earth by the creative word and power of God.

As to the origin of man, many of the scientists, as Darwin and Haeckel, go the whole figure and suppose that mankind, as well as all other species of animals, have been derived from other species — that among the ancestors of man are to be included the monkey and the oyster. But this hypothesis has its difficulties, and even Darwin declared, "I can never reflect on them without being staggered."³ Other scientists have been repelled by difficulties other than those which made Darwin stagger. Professor Max Müller has said that "it is inconceivable that any known animal could ever develop language,"⁴ and that "language is our Rubicon, and no brute will dare to cross it."⁵ Professor Mivart, whom Huxley declared to be a man of "acknowledged scientific competence,"⁶ has declared the Darwinian conception of man's origin to be "utterly irrational" and "a puerile hypothesis," and has declared that "no arguments have been adduced to make probable man's origin from speechless, irrational, non-moral brutes."⁷ Professor Virchow, of Germany, has said that, according to the evidence, "an ape can never become a man," and that "facts seem to teach the invariability of the human species."⁸ Alfred R. Wallace, the simultaneous originator, with Darwin, of the Darwinian theory, maintains that "natural selection" is not sufficient to account for man's origin, and that his large brain, his voice, and his mental and moral powers must have been developed through the guidance of a higher power and intelligence.⁹ Many similar declarations of distinguished scientists might be quoted. Then, there is the difficulty about "the missing link." It is admitted that there is a wide gap between man and the catarrhine (perpendicular-nosed) monkeys, that are claimed by Darwin¹⁰ and Haeckel¹¹ to be the nearest known human progenitors. A single link seems insufficient to bridge so wide a chasm. But not a trace of the ape-like man has been found, and the chasm is without even the semblance of a bridge. Besides, the distinguished scientist Sir John Lubbock maintains, and has succeeded in proving, that the ant, of which there are about a thousand species, ranks next to man in the scale of intelligence, and that the anthropoid apes approach nearer to him only in bodily structure.¹² It is clear, then, that the tiny race must be admitted somewhere between the monkey and the man. But, then, how shall the gap between the crawling ant and the God-like man be filled? Science, or rather the scientists, have been struggling with this problem in vain. The author of Genesis, however, solved it long ago by representing the origin of man to be different from that of other species — his body, indeed, to have been produced by derivative creation from the earth, but his soul coming directly, like a breath, from the Almighty.¹³

Thus, at the very points where science has nothing to say, and where scientists are dumb or weary themselves to no purpose, staggering under difficulties and perhaps calling each other's views irrational and puerile, or at best insufficient, the Mosaic cosmogony declares that God's creative power intervened and operated. Thus the silence of science on these points is justified, since it is not its business, but that of theology, to trace effects to the great First Cause. But how did the ancient author know the points beyond which science could not go, and in the presence of which scientists would be silent, or only differ and wrangle? Whence the knowledge and foresight that led him to locate the intervention of creative power at the origin of things, in the beginning, at the origin of life, and the origin of man's soul, and at the same time to set forth an orderly and progressive gradation in cosmic arrangements, so exactly conformed to all that science teaches on the subject? Haeckel, as we have shown, speaks of "the Jewish lawgiver's grand insight into nature," and expresses his profound admiration for it. But this grand insight is a fact that must be accounted for in some way. May it not be that Moses was divinely inspired and that his "grand insight into nature" came as a special gift from God? The possibility, probability, or certainty that there is a supernatural element in Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch may be legitimately employed as an argument in favor of the Mosaic authorship. For if divine inspiration, or, in other words, if God Almighty had anything to do in the production of these books, the views of the anti-Mosaic critics must certainly be abandoned; for assuredly inspired communications from heaven would not be embodied in frauds, fictions, and historical misrepresentations and perversions.

We have called attention to the profound insight into nature brought to view in the first chapter of Genesis, and to the remarkable and admitted conformity of its declarations to the teachings of modern science. It may be said that the author of Genesis merely recorded in the first chapter some old tradition current among the people in the region of the Euphrates. It is indeed very probable, even certain, that Abram took traditions with him from Ur of the Chaldees, and possibly traditions in written form; for, according to the chronology, he was contemporary with Noah for more than fifty years, Noah was contemporary with Methuselah, who died the year of the flood, about six hundred years, and Methuselah was contemporary with Adam two hundred and forty-three years. Thus Adam could instruct Methuselah and his generation two hundred and forty-three years; Methuselah had six hundred years to transmit all that he had learned from Adam, and what he had found out for himself, to Noah and his generation, and about one hundred years to instruct Shem and his generation; Noah had about fifty years and Shem more than two hundred years to impart all their stores of knowledge to Abram and his generation.

It is thus suggested that all that Adam knew about the creation of the world and of himself and also about the garden of Eden and the fall, and all that Noah knew about the flood, may have been transmitted to Abraham and his descendants. Adam could have had no traditions concerning the creation, and whatever knowledge he and the ancient races possessed on this subject must have come originally as a special gift from God. For in primitive times, when science was unknown, the knowledge of the origin of the world and of plants and animals must have been imparted by the Almighty in some special way, or have been the result of mere conjecture. Will the ground be taken that the Mosaic cosmogony, so sober, so truth-like, and so conformed to all that science has yet been able to discover, is mere guesswork, the creation of fancy in an unscientific and unenlightened age?

We again remind the reader that we are not now maintaining that the Mosaic account of creation is perfectly accurate in a scientific sense. This cannot now be conclusively established, though its scientific accuracy is becoming more and more a matter of demonstration. The skeptical scientist from whom we have above quoted declares that ' ' the authority of the Mosaic history as an absolutely perfect, divine revelation was destroyed "by the demonstration of the Copernican theory. As we have already said, the Mosaic books do not approve the geocentric error, though they do indeed speak of the rising and the setting of the sun, and of the apparent motion of the heavenly bodies in general, just as do all mankind, including astronomers and all other scientists.

But the conformity of the cosmogony in Genesis to truth and fact, as evinced more and more by advancing science, to the surprise and admiration even of skeptics, instead of being accounted for, is rendered more striking, by comparison with cosmogonies preserved in Babylonian and other traditions. The cosmogonies of the ancient nations in general are confused and absurd. Not one of them has been, or can be, accepted by enlightened people.

The Babylonian account of creation is perhaps the most worthy of being compared with that of Genesis. It is supposed to have been current among the dwellers along the Euphrates 2000 B.C., though copied on the tablets of Asurbanipal about 700 B.C. This cosmogony is fragmentary, confused, and obscure, yet in some points is similar to that of Genesis. It appears to speak of six days in creation, a time of chaos, the original commingling of earth and water, the production of animal life by supernatural power, and the placing of the heavenly bodies in relation to the earth.¹⁴ This Chaldaic account of the creation and that of Genesis very likely had the same origin. The similarity between them suggests that in one sense they are the same story, the latter being the original in contents and character, and the former being the mutilated and corrupt form which the story assumed when disfigured and obscured by polytheistic and pantheistic perversions and additions. But all this leaves the origin of the original story untouched, and even makes the simplicity, accuracy and truth to nature retained in the Mosaic account all the more wonderful. If this account contains the information which God imparted originally to mankind concerning the origin of the world and of man, why was it not disfigured and obscured, shorn of its simplicity, truth, and grandeur, and thus assimilated to all the other cosmogonies current among the ancient nations? Whence the difference? And if the hypothesis of the analytic critics in regard to a plurality of Pentateuchal authors is correct, why did not some of these numerous writers, combiners, editors, compilers, revisers, interpolators, and correctors, who touched up almost everything they got their hands on, not alter and mar this grand old story of the creation?

But there are other illustrations of the scientific accuracy of the Pentateuch. The unity of the human race is now an admitted fact. The teaching of Genesis on the oneness of the human race was formerly called in question. But by the aid of chemistry, physiology, philology, ethnology, and history this truth has been triumphantly established, and is accepted by scientists and enlightened people in general. On this subject Genesis was for a long time in advance of the scientists. The original sameness of human speech is another subject in regard to which the accuracy of Genesis has been fully vindicated. We say nothing just now in regard to the story of Babel. But we call attention to the fact that what that story teaches as to the original sameness of human speech, the common origin of languages, and the relationship between them has been in very modern times established as scientific truth. The presumption seemed for a long time to be against these truths as well as against the unity and universal brotherhood of men. But after much investigation and conflict, these truths have been fully established and are generally accepted. This fact is an illustration of the scientific accuracy of the author of Genesis, and furnishes evidence that he was guided by more than human wisdom.

1) Professor Haeckel's History of Creation (Lankester's translation), Vol. I., pp. 37, 38.

2) Darwin's Origin of Species, p. 419.

3) Origin of Species, p. 154.

4) Lecture, Eclectic Magazine, July, 1873, p. 154.

5) Science of Language, First Series, p. 354.

6) Critiques and Addresses, p. 219.

7) Genesis of Species, p. 300; Lessons from Nature, pp. 180, 185, 186.

8) Cranium of the Man and Ape, in Popular Science.

9) Action of Natural Selection on Man.

10) Darwin's Descent of Man, pp. 153-157.

11) Haeckel's History of Creation, Vol. II., pp. 270-274.

12) Ants, Bees, and Wasps, p. 1.

13) Gen. 2:7.

14) George Smith, Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 61-100.