WHAT OF IT? AN OPEN LETTER TO STUDENTS 513 



ence: the latter are full of the quarrels of many gods, the fear of 

 primeval dragons, and the like. "When one turns from this welter of my- 

 thology to the first chapter of Genesis, with its stately and glorious exor- 

 dium, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,' one feels as 

 though he had left miasmic marshes for a high mountain with clean air to 

 breathe and great horizons to look upon. Here a victory was gained for 

 pure religion for which we never can be too thankful" (Fosdick, 1924). 



Yes, the first chapters of Genesis are great religion. Why worry about 

 the fact that they are not valid science? The Bible is a book of religion, not 

 a book of science. Acceptance of its religion is in no way dependent upon 

 acceptance of such scientific allusions as it chances to contain. It is just as 

 possible to worship a God who works through natural laws, slowly evolving 

 life on this planet, as it is to worship a God who creates by sudden com- 

 mand. In fact, is not our concept of the Creator immeasurably heightened 

 when we understand more and more of the intricate workings of this mar- 

 velous universe? Such a Creator is of far greater stature than would be a 

 miracle worker who created things once and for all back in 4004 B.C. 



I know the question in the minds of many of you who have followed me 

 to this point: "Does not science prove that there is no Creator?" Em- 

 phatically, science does not prove that! Actually science proves nothing 

 about first causes at all. As we mentioned in an earlier chapter, science 

 deals with phenomena that can be studied by the physical senses, particu- 

 larly the sense of sight, aided by all manner of methods of extending 

 those senses: microscopes, telescopes, varied measuring devices, and so 

 on. As we perfect these "tools'" and become more and more adept in their 

 use and in the interpretation of the data which they supply we learn more 

 and more about the facts of the universe. But we do not arrive at the first 

 causes of those facts. Science enables us to determine that "phenomenon 

 Z" is caused by "phenomenon Y," for example. Further research may 

 demonstrate that "phenomenon Y," in turn, is caused by "phenomenon 

 X." But what causes "phenomenon X"? Researchers work on the problem 

 and eventually discover "phenomenon W," which is a necessary precursor 

 of "phenomenon X." Or perhaps they discover a "phenomenon W" and a 

 "phenomenon V" both of which are necessary if "phenomenon X" is to 

 occur. Now we have to determine the causes of "phenomenon V" and 

 "phenomenon W." And so we go back, step by step discovering more and 

 more causes of causes, but not arriving at first causes ("phenomenon A" of 

 our hypothetical series). Will science, as such, ever arrive at first causes 

 ("phenomenon A")? That, of course, is a question we cannot answer. If it 

 ever does, science will then be in position to prove whether or not there is 



