What do you think?
Rate this book
Modern science and the Genesis record
292 pages, Unknown Binding
Published January 1, 1937
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 24, 2025
THE EARLY APOLOGIST/CREATIONIST LOOKS AT CREATION, EVOLUTION, ETC.
Harry Rimmer (1890—1952) was an early creationist/anti-evolutionist writer, who was influential in the fundamentalist movement. He wrote in the Foreword to this 1937 book, “This second volume … continues the series on Apologetics which the author hopes to complete in four more volumes devoted to this work. Like the first volume, ‘The Harmony of Science and Scripture,’ most of this material in Volume Two has not only been used in lecture form before student bodies, scientific and teaching assemblies, as well as the general public, but has also appeared in pamphlet form and in stated editorials in various publications…
“We do not attempt to study the book of Genesis purely for its scientific value. We approach the study from that angle only that we may have additional illumination on the person and work of our Saviour. Therefore, each of the studies in these work-days is concluded with a picture of Him of whom Moses did speak.”
He wrote in the first chapter, “The word ‘yom,’ or ‘day,’ in Scripture, frequently means a solar day as we understand it… It is not necessary to multiple such instances; there are hundreds of verses in the Old Testament, where the word day means a solar day as we know it in our own generation...” (Pg. 13, 15) But he continues, “the word sometimes means a period of time, of greater or lesser extent, generally of indefinite duration. Such a time period is found in Isaiah the second chapter, where the prophet says: ‘For there shall be a day of Jehovah of Hosts upon all that is proud and haughty… and Jehovah alone shall be exalted in that day… In that day men shall cast away their idols.’ So, then, the word ‘day’ or ‘yom,’ is sometimes used in a figurative sense, a time period being intended. There are many such passages where this is so… In other instances the word ‘day’ means time itself. Thus we read in Genesis [4:3]: ‘And in process of time it came to pass…’ [in 28:8] we read again: ‘And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time…’ this time instead of being translated day it is translated ‘a long time.’ ... Yet this is the same word that appears in the first chapter of Genesis as the creative period, and is called, there, ‘day.’” (Pg. 15-16)
He argues, “there is no reason to DEMAND an extensive time period in the days of creation in Genesis, except the desire to be in conformity with … the evolutionary school of geology… it seems necessary to many to acknowledge that the days of Genesis are geological ages, but the fact is, it is necessary only if the evolutionists are right! And in view of the fact that they are uniformly wrong on all their other points, why must we make the Bible conform to their age-factor at the cost of reason, and at the price of straining the text? For these reasons… we are inclined to accept the days of Genesis as solar days… At the same time we dare not be dogmatic; and wish to emphasize once more the philosophical fact, that the word used is susceptible of other meanings, as we showed at the beginning of the chapter.” (Pg. 22-23)
He continues, “let us note that whether the ‘days’ are solar or epochal, there are points where geology and Genesis are in remarkable agreement… [T]he Pleistocene period… is the last geological age preceding man’s appearance, and here Gensis and geology are in absolute accord…” (Pg. 23)
He continues, “None of our present species of living creatures can be traced back to the Pleistocene period, which is the age just preceding the appearance of man. Moses and geology are in accord on that conclusion. This vast period which Moses covers in the second verse of Genesis, geology calls the great Ice Age.” (Pgs. 29)
He states, “Our friends the materialists … seek to prove that there is no intelligence in the functioning of the firmament! We, of course, are willing to admit that this process is mechanical. Let us make of it an equation, as follows: Mechanics equals Machine. Machine equals Inventor. That is all we hoped to demonstrate: Intelligence is behind the whole process. There is no law, natural or otherwise, without a legislative body or Being…” (Pg. 76)
He notes that to the materialist, “the question of color in flowers is no mystery… the mechanistic philosopher tells us glibly that the flowers ‘invented’ color to attract the bees! … To show how lacking in truth the theory of the materialist is, it has recently been demonstrated that bees are color blind, and cannot tell one color from another! The poor flowers! After all their trouble, inventing colors to attract the bees, it is now known that a bee can’t tell blue from pink… black from yellow! Is there, then, no reason for colors in the blossoms? Indeed there is: the creationist sees a reason for every act his God had performed… In the flower is .. found the beauty and the mystery of sex… the vast majority have both male and female organs in the one blossom…” (Pg. 144-145)
He states, “Moses does not state that these heavenly bodies are created on this fourth day of which he now writes. He does not use the Hebrew word ‘baba’ (to create)… but uses instead the alternate expression, ‘asah’ (to release from restraint)… to paraphrase… on this fourth day God spoke and said, 'Let the light containers be released from restraint…’ and the wonder of our present order occurred. The fog and vapor melted away, and the atmosphere was cleared of its hindering mist.” (Pg. 164)
He argues, “The feet of birds… also argue for design… Notice, as an instance, the feet of the duck… Because he is faced with the problem of propulsion through the water, he is equipped with webbed feet. At the end of each leg he has an ingenious paddle, or oar, to drive him in the direction in which he desires to go… Query: did he take to the water because he had webbed feet, or did he get his webbed feet because he took to the water? It is evident at once that the latter cannot be the case, for what would the dusk have done in the water while he was … developing these webbed feet?...It is apparent to the most superficial observer, that if the duck appears at the very start with webbed feet, he must have been created for the water. Thus again we see design.” (Pg. 224)
He points out, “[It is the] special arrangement to cleanse its breathing apparatus, that makes the continuity of a bee’s life possible. Without this device the bee would die… if this organ was produced to respond to this need, then the first bee, not having this essential organ, would have perished by asphyxiation, and the species would have perished in the beginning. But if the brushes were put there in anticipation of that need… then that is creation; forethought, design. So evolution goes to pieces on the knees of a bee.” (Pg. 231)
He concludes, "The conclusion must be written by the reader. Reason will tell you that science is correct here: we were created by God. Conscience will convict you of the fact of sin!” (Pg. 292)
This book may interest Christians who are studying the history of apologetics, and of creationism.
Harry Rimmer (1890—1952) was an early creationist/anti-evolutionist writer, who was influential in the fundamentalist movement. He wrote in the Foreword to this 1937 book, “This second volume … continues the series on Apologetics which the author hopes to complete in four more volumes devoted to this work. Like the first volume, ‘The Harmony of Science and Scripture,’ most of this material in Volume Two has not only been used in lecture form before student bodies, scientific and teaching assemblies, as well as the general public, but has also appeared in pamphlet form and in stated editorials in various publications…
“We do not attempt to study the book of Genesis purely for its scientific value. We approach the study from that angle only that we may have additional illumination on the person and work of our Saviour. Therefore, each of the studies in these work-days is concluded with a picture of Him of whom Moses did speak.”
He wrote in the first chapter, “The word ‘yom,’ or ‘day,’ in Scripture, frequently means a solar day as we understand it… It is not necessary to multiple such instances; there are hundreds of verses in the Old Testament, where the word day means a solar day as we know it in our own generation...” (Pg. 13, 15) But he continues, “the word sometimes means a period of time, of greater or lesser extent, generally of indefinite duration. Such a time period is found in Isaiah the second chapter, where the prophet says: ‘For there shall be a day of Jehovah of Hosts upon all that is proud and haughty… and Jehovah alone shall be exalted in that day… In that day men shall cast away their idols.’ So, then, the word ‘day’ or ‘yom,’ is sometimes used in a figurative sense, a time period being intended. There are many such passages where this is so… In other instances the word ‘day’ means time itself. Thus we read in Genesis [4:3]: ‘And in process of time it came to pass…’ [in 28:8] we read again: ‘And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time…’ this time instead of being translated day it is translated ‘a long time.’ ... Yet this is the same word that appears in the first chapter of Genesis as the creative period, and is called, there, ‘day.’” (Pg. 15-16)
He argues, “there is no reason to DEMAND an extensive time period in the days of creation in Genesis, except the desire to be in conformity with … the evolutionary school of geology… it seems necessary to many to acknowledge that the days of Genesis are geological ages, but the fact is, it is necessary only if the evolutionists are right! And in view of the fact that they are uniformly wrong on all their other points, why must we make the Bible conform to their age-factor at the cost of reason, and at the price of straining the text? For these reasons… we are inclined to accept the days of Genesis as solar days… At the same time we dare not be dogmatic; and wish to emphasize once more the philosophical fact, that the word used is susceptible of other meanings, as we showed at the beginning of the chapter.” (Pg. 22-23)
He continues, “let us note that whether the ‘days’ are solar or epochal, there are points where geology and Genesis are in remarkable agreement… [T]he Pleistocene period… is the last geological age preceding man’s appearance, and here Gensis and geology are in absolute accord…” (Pg. 23)
He continues, “None of our present species of living creatures can be traced back to the Pleistocene period, which is the age just preceding the appearance of man. Moses and geology are in accord on that conclusion. This vast period which Moses covers in the second verse of Genesis, geology calls the great Ice Age.” (Pgs. 29)
He states, “Our friends the materialists … seek to prove that there is no intelligence in the functioning of the firmament! We, of course, are willing to admit that this process is mechanical. Let us make of it an equation, as follows: Mechanics equals Machine. Machine equals Inventor. That is all we hoped to demonstrate: Intelligence is behind the whole process. There is no law, natural or otherwise, without a legislative body or Being…” (Pg. 76)
He notes that to the materialist, “the question of color in flowers is no mystery… the mechanistic philosopher tells us glibly that the flowers ‘invented’ color to attract the bees! … To show how lacking in truth the theory of the materialist is, it has recently been demonstrated that bees are color blind, and cannot tell one color from another! The poor flowers! After all their trouble, inventing colors to attract the bees, it is now known that a bee can’t tell blue from pink… black from yellow! Is there, then, no reason for colors in the blossoms? Indeed there is: the creationist sees a reason for every act his God had performed… In the flower is .. found the beauty and the mystery of sex… the vast majority have both male and female organs in the one blossom…” (Pg. 144-145)
He states, “Moses does not state that these heavenly bodies are created on this fourth day of which he now writes. He does not use the Hebrew word ‘baba’ (to create)… but uses instead the alternate expression, ‘asah’ (to release from restraint)… to paraphrase… on this fourth day God spoke and said, 'Let the light containers be released from restraint…’ and the wonder of our present order occurred. The fog and vapor melted away, and the atmosphere was cleared of its hindering mist.” (Pg. 164)
He argues, “The feet of birds… also argue for design… Notice, as an instance, the feet of the duck… Because he is faced with the problem of propulsion through the water, he is equipped with webbed feet. At the end of each leg he has an ingenious paddle, or oar, to drive him in the direction in which he desires to go… Query: did he take to the water because he had webbed feet, or did he get his webbed feet because he took to the water? It is evident at once that the latter cannot be the case, for what would the dusk have done in the water while he was … developing these webbed feet?...It is apparent to the most superficial observer, that if the duck appears at the very start with webbed feet, he must have been created for the water. Thus again we see design.” (Pg. 224)
He points out, “[It is the] special arrangement to cleanse its breathing apparatus, that makes the continuity of a bee’s life possible. Without this device the bee would die… if this organ was produced to respond to this need, then the first bee, not having this essential organ, would have perished by asphyxiation, and the species would have perished in the beginning. But if the brushes were put there in anticipation of that need… then that is creation; forethought, design. So evolution goes to pieces on the knees of a bee.” (Pg. 231)
He concludes, "The conclusion must be written by the reader. Reason will tell you that science is correct here: we were created by God. Conscience will convict you of the fact of sin!” (Pg. 292)
This book may interest Christians who are studying the history of apologetics, and of creationism.
Displaying 1 of 1 review