Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1922-04-15
AS THE PEOPLE VIEW 1T

Many today are his successful apos-
ties in this respect.
However, it may have been with
these advocates and apostles of
such a doctrine it matters little now
since Time, the proven, has-ac-
cording to. Prof. Bateson q pre-
eminently acknowledged authority
en- biology-after more than forty
years offered not an iota in support
of Darwinism. He further states
that while still favoring the theory
he is forced to abandon Darwin
ism and turn to "the dim outline
offered by geology"
But here he is taken to task by
Prof. Price, (gelogist, California;,
who states that the new findings of
geology, coming more and more to
the front as "The New Catastro-
phsmt has or nothing to ht offer fife +h in
contrary leaves or will leave, moth
ing out of harmony with the Bibli-
cal account Of creation.
With whatever frequency or
proximity these cataclysmic changes
may have followed each other,
leaving no connecting life-link be-
tween the successive eras, there is
no need to be specially concerned,
inasmuch as the opening sentence
of the Word of God that I'm the
beginning God created the heavens
and the earth" embraces an in
definite and Understandable time,
being so recognized by able and
accepted Bible scholarship. In the
words of DR.. Scofield: THE first
creative act of Genesis l. 1, refers to
the dateless past, and gives scope
for all the geologic ages"
We welcome the findings Of a
true science, but where it is unable
TO disclose it should stand with
barred and bowed head in the pres
ence of impenetrable profundity in
humble acknowledgment of Him
whose omniscience has set the
bounds. The failure of many to
do this and the making of hypothe-
ses into dogmas has made sorry
mess.
Science itself has purged out the
error of Darwinian evolution. Thera
are, however, many adherents in
college and university and in echo
ing pulpit and press that persist in
nursing the lifeless proposition to
the misleading of the many.
1t is high time this thumb suck
ing cease and a turn made to mat
ters of substance and life as re-
vealed in the Word of God. -
That they do not do so in the face
of such exposures seems eXplainable
only on the ground that they do not
wish to surrender weapon that
combats that word which is a mir
lror to their inner man-that
searches him out and reveals what
he is in the sight of God.
Evolution would deny the first
chapter of Genesis and the virgin
birth and deity of Jesus and thus
the Bible as Gods word. 1t denies
fiat creation and substitutes a
Iprocess-a process in which others
besides yourself profess to see a
greater and higher God than the
God of Genesis. We wonder how
much greater! We wonder if they
really do believe it. Can you, Mr..
Editor, who would measure God
by hypothetical law, tell the
writer how much greater your god
of evolution is than his God of
love that came down so low as 10
be spit upon by vile and profane
mouths and to die an ignominious
death for him, and for all who will
receive it. A death with thieves
and robbers on a degrading Roman
cross? Have you any height that
exceeds this depth? Anything
greater than life laid down for
your sake?
Ali no, such a statement cannot
be more than a mere self-comfort-
ing whistling in the dark. "
AS to the plenary and verbal in
SEPARATION of Scripture which your
article denies, Scripture speaks for
itself: "All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God" Gil. Tim. Ill,
6, also Eek. ". Is, II Peter | I'D
and no philosophy of man will
change that truth. If it is not so
received it is because the denier or
! the questioner has not needed the
dictum of Jesus the Christ to
/ Israel's teacher: Eye must be born
again Yours truly,
J. N. JOHNSON.