Call to Worship (Jimmy)
Design by Robert Frost
“I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
on a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth ---
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of witches’ broth –
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall? –
If design govern in a thing so small.”
Chalice Lighting (Kevin)
On June 20, 1815, John Adams wrote the following in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
Opening Hymn: “A Firemist and a Planet” Number 343
Reading from Genesis (Kevin)
In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, let there be light.
Special Music
Reading (Jimmy)
On September 14, 1813, John Adams wrote the following in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
"Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it, but We could not have believed it. The thunders and Lightenings and Earthqu[ak]es and the transcendant Splendors and Glories, might have overwhelmed Us with terror and Amazement: but We could not have believed the doctrine, We should be more likely to say in our hearts, whatever We might say with our Lips, This is Chance. There is no God! No Truth. This is all delusion, fiction and a lie: or it is all Chance. But what is Chance? It is motion; it is Action; it is Event; it is Phenomenon, without Cause. Chance is no cause at all. It is nothing. And Nothing has produced all this Pomp and Splendor; and Nothing may produce Our eternal damnation in the flames of Hell fire and Brimstone for what we know, as well as this tremendous Exhibition of Terror and Falshood.
" God has infinite Wisdom, goodness and power. He created the Universe. His duration is eternal, a parte Ante, and a parte post. His presence is as extensive as Space. What is Space? an infinite, sphericle Vaccuum. He created this Speck of Dirt and the human Species for his glory: and with the deliberate design of making, nine tenths of our Species miserable forever for his glory. This is the doctrine of Christian Theologians in general: ten to one.
" Now, my friend, can Prophecies, or miracles convince You, or Me, that infinite Benevolence, Wisdom and Power, created and preserves, for a time, innumerable millions to make them misserable, forever; for his own Glory? Wretch! What is the Glory? Is he ambitious? does he want promotion? Is he vain? tickled with Adulation? Exulting and tryumphing in his Power and Sweetness of his Vengeance? Pardon me, my Maker, for these Aweful Questions. My answer to them is always ready: I believe no such Things.
" My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exultation in my own existence, 'tho but an Atom, a Molecule Organique, in the Universe; are my religion."
Prayer:
I would like to open this moment of prayer or meditation with a few words from ee cummings:
i thank You God for most this amazing
day:for the leaping greenly spirits of trees
and a blue true dream of sky;and for everything
which is natural which is infinite which is yes(i who have died am alive again today,
and this is the sun's birthday;this is the birth
day of life and of love and wings:and of the gay
great happening illimitably earth)how should tasting touching hearing seeing
breathing any--lifted from the no
of allnothing--human merely being
doubt unimaginable You?(now the ears of my ears awake and
now the eyes of my eyes are opened)Please join me in silent meditation or prayer
Offertory (Jimmy)
The offering is a sacrament of the free Church. It is supported by the voluntary generosity of all who join with us.
The offering will now be given and received in grateful appreciation of our shared hopes and values.
Reading
(Kevin)
In a life short and uncertain, it seems heartless to do anything that might deprive people of the consolation of faith when science cannot remedy their anguish. Those who cannot bear the burden of science are free to ignore its precepts. But we cannot have science in bits and pieces, applying it where we feel safe and ignoring it where we feel threatened – again, because we are not wise enough to do so. Except by sealing the brain into separate airtight compartments, how is it possible to fly in airplanes, listen to the radio or take antibiotics while holding that the Earth is around 10,000 years old or that all Sagittarians are gregarious and affable?
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, 1995
Hymn: “For All That Is Our Life” Number 128
Sermon: Kevin:
The Associated Press reports that on August 15, a Unitarian couple was arrested by police in Katy, Texas. According to witnesses, the couple was attending a neighborhood backyard barbeque when a friendly discussion about coleslaw turned into a vigorous religious debate. The Unitarians became offended after other party guests began telling a series of Unitarian jokes. They left the party shortly after the joke telling ended and were apparently very upset. Police were called in when the picnic host observed the Unitarians attempting to burn a question mark in his front yard.
Jimmy:
Where did we come from? Are we descended from primordial ooze or from ancient creatures deep inside the earth or were we formed from dust – the product of a divine mud pie?
The origin of man has been hotly debated since Darwin first proposed his Theory of Evolution, in 1859. This, in spite of the fact that evolution is no longer considered a theory by scientists. Researchers continue to uncover mountains of evidence at the macro and microbiological levels that directly support Darwin’s initial hypothesis. It is also worth noting that none other than the Holy Roman Catholic Church has given evolution it’s blessing – of a sort.
Historically, the predominant argument against evolution is from Creationists, who insist that science be forced to fit the biblical version of the birth of Man. The newest incarnation of creation theory is Intelligent Design – based on the premise that the natural world is so complex that it could not possibly have developed without divine intervention.
Before we launch into today’s 50-cent biology lesson on Intelligent Design and Evolution it is essential that you understand that this sermon is not really about biology. It is about groups in our society who are using Intelligent Design as a way to blur the division between faith and reason. Their ultimate goal is to have Creation taught as science in public schools. They see the science of evolution as a threat to Christianity. They have gone so far as to hold Darwin responsible for what they define as moral decay in our society, which we know, was actually caused by the Beatles.
Intelligent Design is a newborn cousin of the still dominant "young earth" and "Flood geology" views. You may be interested to know according to Gallup polls, an astounding 47% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so".
According to Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World, “Only 9 percent of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that human beings (and all other species) have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way.”
Before we can effectively discuss Intelligent Design it makes sense to briefly review the history of man’s efforts to explain his origins.
As far back as we can tell primitive cultures have attempted to explain things they did not understand. What causes day and night? Where does rain come from? Who put the stars and planets in the sky? Where did man come from? What happens to us when we die? And, most importantly, how does a Thermos jug know to keep hot things hot and cold things cold?
As told in the Old Testament, the Hebrew creation story of Genesis was believed by Christians and Jews to be an accurate explanation of man’s beginnings.
In 1805 William Paley, in his philosophical work titled Natural Theology, introduced the well-known Watchmaker analogy. It goes something like this:
“Imagine that you are walking in the woods. You see something shiny lying in your path. As you bend over to pick it up you realize it is a watch. If you were asked whether or not the watch was created by random natural processes, or by the hands of a skilled craftsman, you would most likely respond that it was designed and crafted by an intelligent being.”
Paley’s theory of a divine creator was an easy sell to audiences in Darwin’s day because it was “teleological” in nature. It was a presumably seamless integration of science and religion that explained the origins of man. It was full of biological examples that seemed to prove Paley’s notion that all living things were created in flawless harmony with their environment. Paley had solved a fundamental dilemma that plagued scientists, and theologians alike, by developing a theory that married science with religion. Paley’s theory became known as “The Argument From Design”. Please note: The Watchmaker analogy is also known as Argument From Design, and we will revisit it later.
Kevin:
As a young biologist, Charles Darwin was impressed by Paley’s vision. So, like most other biologists of his day Darwin signed on as a student of Natural Theology. When Darwin embarked on his 5-year biological research voyage, on the H.M.S. Beagle he set out to simply find and catalogue biological specimens. His research design was based on the methods of Sir Francis Bacon. In the words of Darwin, “I worked on the true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale.”
However, in spite of his good intentions Darwin failed to gather many specimens that in retrospect would have provided stronger evidence for the theory of evolution. A theory that he formulated after he had begun to study his specimens.
Why did Darwin overlook these specimens in his data collection: Because he believed in Young Earth geology and Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy. Remember, this analogy was the layman’s version of Natural Theology as the explanation for the origins of species. Darwin’s belief in Natural Theology introduced a bias into his specimen gathering process.
What happened next is a testament to Darwin’s commitment to pure scientific investigation. He began studying his specimens during the return leg of the research trip. Even before arriving back home in England he uncovered evidence that directly contradicted Paley’s theory of Natural Theology.
Darwin had discovered a number of chinks in the armor of Natural Theology, for example:
* He observed geologic formations that clearly could not have been formed in 10,000 years. Incidentally, Darwin was not the first person to figure this out.
* He observed numerous instances of species that were not existing in harmony. In fact, they were engaged in a bitter struggle for “survival of the fittest”.
* Contrary to Paley’s theory these species often appeared to be on the brink of extinction.
Because Darwin was a competent scientist, he was compelled to apply the Scientific Method in his research. Here’s how that worked:
* He identified a problem. Darwin’s problem was how to explain the data he had gathered.
* He developed an explanation. His hypothesis was that species adapted over time through a process of natural selection. The process of natural selection allowed for the species to retain genetic variations that were best suited to enable the species to survive their environment, and to eliminate those genetic variations that were detrimental to the survival of the species.
* Darwin then tested his hypothesis against five years of data collected from species from around the world, most notably the Gallapagos Islands, a rich, diverse, and often harsh landscape teeming with flora and fauna.
Bear in mind that the scientific method requires that a hypothesis be rigorously tested. The intent is to find ways for the hypothesis to fail. Presumably, there is a point in the testing process where science declares that a hypothesis is valid. Because of the enormous amount of data he had gathered Darwin was able to apply this level of testing to his theory of natural adaptation.
Darwin’s diligent application of the scientific method forced him to abandon creation theory, or Natural Theology. His research led him inextricably to his now-famous proposal of adaptation among species, commonly known as “Survival of the Fittest”.
What came to be known as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution set the scientific and religious world on its ear. According to Darwin’s findings, species could develop and evolve without the intervention of a divine sponsor.
Jimmy:
Holy Natural Selection Batman! God could no longer take lone credit for the seemingly infinite complexity of the natural world?
But wait, there’s more! If the world is older than 10,000 years, the Bible could not be taken as a literal history of the human race.
Historically, the public reaction to Darwin’s findings is most eloquently found in these classic words that have been handed down from one generation of Creationist to the next, over the years: “Are you trying to tell me my grandpa was a monkey?” Apparently, it is easier to believe that man is descended from dirt.
A milestone in the now 143-year-old debate over Creation versus Evolution was the famous 1925 Scopes trial portrayed in the play “Inherit the Wind”.
As the story goes, John Scopes, a public school teacher in Tennessee, violated a state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in schools.
Scopes, a teacher who insisted that his students not be denied a well-rounded education in biology, had inadvertently set off a whirlwind.
The trial was one of the first times that the issue of teaching Creationism versus teaching evolution was debated in court in the United States. The trial, which came to be known as “The Monkey Trial”, turned into a media circus, attracting Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, both political powerhouses of the day, to represent the two sides of the issue.
The outcome was that John Scopes was found guilty. His case was then thrown out on appeal because of a legal technicality. It is important to note that because the case was thrown out, the law was never tested against the Constitution of the United States.
It will be no surprise that opposition to the concept of evolution is alive and well today. In a society where some people still question whether we have landed on the moon, it is reasonable to expect opposition to any scientific fact, no matter how well it has been tested.
Modern opposition to evolution has itself evolved, although this evolution definitely took place at the hands of skilled designers. Academics with scientific credentials are rallying in support of argument by design by dressing it up in the language of mathematics and microbiology. These proponents of modern argument from design claim to have addressed the scientific flaws in Paley’s Watchmaker analogy, and they have distanced themselves from fundamentalist creationists who generally espouse the “young earth” theory. In fact, they will even admit to the possibility of evolution of species. But, they deny human evolution, and they insist that evolution among other species has not happened very often.
They call their theory “Intelligent Design”. They want it taught in public schools as science. And their theory is getting attention in some educational and political circles.
All this in spite of the fact that Intelligent Design proponents have not been able to produce one shred of scientific evidence to support their theories. Not one. Not even a small one.
How are they able to get attention in educational and political circles when they have no evidence to support their theory?
Consider this:
The debate over Intelligent Design is not about science. It is about religion and politics.
You may recall the recent episode whereby an atheist doctor and attorney filed suit to avoid having his daughter be pressured into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because of the phrase “one nation under god”. Politicians and bureaucrats from all over the nation were stepping all over each other to declare how proud they were to endorse God. Even though the founding fathers intentionally designed the Government to be separate from religion and to protect peoples right to worship as they see fit. Politicians and bureaucrats are obviously afraid to lose public support by appearing to be anti-Christian. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they have no qualms about using their Christianity as a way to garner public support.
Kevin:
There may be some of you who are hung up about whether or not the United States is a Christian nation founded by Christians. More likely, you’ve been confronted by friends, coworkers, or neighbors, who are convinced of this. So, in order to clear the way for the remainder of our sermon, we will present the opinions of some of our nation’s founding fathers. Our second reading was from John Adams, who was railing against traditional Judeo-Christian dogma. Now let’s hear what a couple more of our nation’s founding fathers had to say on the topic:
James Madison:
" And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in [showing] that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
And now a word from Thomas Jefferson:
" Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
So, when you combine the fear of appearing anti-Christian, with the complex and confusing pseudo-scientific arguments that Intelligent Design theorists make, and the necessarily complex and confusing counter-arguments that biologists, physicists, and mathematicians must make in order to refute Intelligent Design, you can imagine the reaction of the average politician or bureaucrat who already operates in a state of information overload. You guessed it. Their eyes glaze over.
It is simply easier for political and educational decision-makers to acquiesce, and ignore the problem of teaching inaccurate science lessons to our children.
Jimmy:
On that note, we will march steadfastly, without hesitation, into a complex and confusing Intelligent Design argument, without even so much as an apology.
There are a number of Intelligent Design arguments. The argument we will present and refute is known as “Irreducible Complexity”. It is the theory that Intelligent Design proponents feel is their best shot. It is the basis for the remaining Intelligent Design arguments. And, it is an updated version of Paley’s Watchmaker analogy. See? I told you we would revisit this topic.
The Theory of Irreducible Complexity was proposed by Michael Behe, a biochemist, who works at Lehigh University. Behe readily admits that his purpose for studying science was to enable science to make room for religion. Contrast this to Darwin’s pure commitment to an unbiased application of the Scientific Method, in spite of the predisposed notions he carried with him into his research.
Behe claims that Irreducible Complexity exists in biological organisms and therefore refutes Darwin’s evolutionary mechanism.
Behe’s theory states that irreducible complexity exists when:
" a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively stop functioning." (Behe 1996, p. 39)
Not to be outdone by Paley, Behe provides his own analogy, also using a machine to explain a biological theory. Behe purports that a classic mousetrap fulfills his requirements for irreducible complexity.
In Behe’s own words:
“ An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.”
“ So what?” you may ask. But Behe is not finished yet. He claims that irreducibly complex systems:
" cannot be produced … by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." (Behe 1996, p. 39)
Scientists have long understood that parts of supposedly Irreducibly Complex machines can still be useful, although their function may be different. We will not go into the painful details here, but scientists have easily been able to demonstrate how to use the components of a mousetrap as tie clips, paperweights, or a fishhook. John McDonald, professor of biology at the University of Delaware has produced examples of how a functional mousetrap could evolve from a simple loop of wire under tension through a series of modifications, each one improving on the effectiveness of the trap. McDonald eventually evolves his mousetrap into its classic form.
Enough about mousetraps – no good presentation of biological theory would be complete without some discussion of a living thing.
According to Behe, Irreducible Complexity is demonstrated at the cellular level by the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum is composed of a bunch of proteins that work together to propel the bacterial cell around. Flagella are like miniature outboard motors. Behe states that without almost any one of the component proteins the flagella cannot function.
Ken Miller, professor of biology at Brown University responds to this argument by pointing out that in the absence of almost any of its parts, the bacterial flagellum does work. Many bacteria use it as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. It should be noted that every example of “irreducible complexity” put forth has been shown by one scientist or another to be a sham.
These examples are meant to confuse and cloud the real issue. What Behe is suggesting to us is: since we don’t currently have an explanation of how things as complex as bacteria developed as we see them today we should stop looking scientifically. His model says, “hey, this thing is REALLY complex, so the only thing to explain it is a DESIGNER.”
Kevin:
Intelligent Design proponents assert that their theories prove that evolution can’t happen. And, if evolution couldn’t have happened, an intelligent designer must have guided the process.
Guess what? Argument by default is not a valid proof. It is the functional equivalent of stating that since we don’t know how the planets were set in motion – a God must have done it! Or, since I don’t know why my daughters argue constantly with each other, it must be the work of Satan!
At this point, God only knows how intelligent design theorists would react if valid scientific evidence showed up that demonstrated yet another way for organisms to evolve. Oops. It’s already been done. Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Selfish Gene proved evolution at the cellular and genetic level. Intelligent Designers choose to ignore this.
According to Brooks Hanson in a 1999 issue of Science magazine:
Dobzhansky's famous dictum that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is even more true today than it was half a century ago. The concepts and principles of evolution are so ingrained and fundamental in many fields, not just in the life sciences, that their acceptance seems almost subliminal in many cases.
Intelligent design theorists believe that the only reason scientists resist their astounding findings is that they don't want to admit the possibility that God might have had something to do with creating the world.
It seems more likely that scientists haven’t embraced intelligent design theory because there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. In fact, they haven’t even come up with a testable hypothesis! Intelligent Design theorists must find the scientific method to be incredibly annoying. Unfortunately, you can’t declare something to be fact simply because you really want it to be. You have to provide a testable hypothesis and evidence.
Intelligent design theorists point to a number of scientific theories that still lack hard evidence, such as black hole theory or even the big bang theory.
But these theories aren’t just guesses pulled out of thin air. They are valid explanations that fit the known facts. Perhaps we are not able to test them yet because of some yet undeveloped piece of technology, but does that mean we should give up the quest and settle on a supernatural explanation?
History is replete with examples of natural phenomena that man did not understand, for which man created divine explanations, and later, through scientific study was able to explain through natural causes. Obvious examples include lightning and thunder, day and night.
Fermentation, the process which man has used for ages to create mead, ale, and wine was thought to have been achieved via magic, until Louis Pasteur uncovered microorganisms in the 1870s. Dr. Pasteur not only showed us how to produce safer dairy products, but his research went a long way towards improving the quality of wine and beer. Now, that’s what I call divine intervention. Thank God for Dr. Pasteur.
Jimmy:
Beyond religious and scientific debate, how does all of this touch us as Unitarian Universalists? Consider the Unitarian Universalist principle of “A free and responsible search for truth and meaning”. Intelligent Design theorists find no moral dilemma with stepping all over our search for truth and meaning.
Some of the most active proponents of intelligent design have espoused the “Wedge Strategy” that can be summed in the words of one of the fathers of intelligent design Phillip Johnson:
“ If we view [science] as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points.”
This plan to “bring down” science seems motivated by the fear that human meaning is somehow diminished if science continues to flourish. We hold that human dignity and meaning thrives on reason and faith, and can only be diminished by ignorance.
Recently, the Kansas State Board of Education came under attack by Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. Their purpose is not to ensure that science is effectively taught to kids in school. They purpose is to halt the teaching of evolution because they feel it undermines purpose in life and has created moral decay in contemporary society. As an example, they point to homosexuality as an indication of moral decay.
And, they have allies in the government. Do you remember the politicians and bureaucrats we discussed earlier? Robert T. Pennock, professor of philosophy and religion at Michigan State University provides this accounting of the situation at the Kansas State Board of Education:
“ Take, for example, the original draft of the Kansas science standards. It includes a section on teaching with tolerance. It stated that teachers should treat questions students raise that fall outside of science with respect: "The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy." This is an eminently sensitive and sensible policy.
Incredibly, creationists on the board cut this reasonable recommendation and, in their revision, replaced it with the following sentence: "No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current science theory will be censured."
With all the attention to the scientific material that creationists cut out, this significant addition has not been reported in the media; it was discovered only while doing a line-by-line comparison of the creationist revision to the original draft. This critical directive clearly opens the door for "creation-scientists" to attack scientific findings as part of the science curriculum.
This superficially "open-minded" proposal to teach what creationists call "alternatives to evolution" is a recipe for disaster that asks teachers to dispense with discriminative rational judgment and sound standards of scientific evidence. Creationists are not the only group who claim some "analysis of evidence" that they say supports their "alternative theory." Modern day "witches," members of the Wiccan faith, will rightly take offence at how creationists portray their views, and will no doubt want to provide students with their own analysis of the evidence and ideas about supernatural intelligent design. The Raelian Movement, whose members reject both evolution and creationism, says that the evidence indicates life on earth was created by extraterrestrials. And as we have already noted, even Christian creationists, with quite different understandings of biblical inerrancy, disagree vehemently among themselves about how much of the scientific evidence they will accept.
Questions about the relationship of science and different religious viewpoints are important, but such debates don't belong in science class. Science provides our best understanding of the facts of the natural world, and the core evolutionary thesis of the common descent of all animal species is as well-established a fact as any in science. However, scientific method cannot tell us the moral or theological significance of such facts. To determine the meaning of evolution we must look elsewhere.Kevin:
Consider these words from Ben Franklin:
" The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."Obviously, faith has an important role in our lives. Let’s not diminish that role by attempting to make faith be something that it is not. Faith is not something we can touch or smell. It is something we feel, in our hearts. The leap of faith is a wonderful personal moment where we test the strength of our convictions.
The value of faith is lessened by the false imposition of weakly designed support structures.
Science is something we can touch, and see, and smell, and hear. It can be tested and proven wrong, or right.
Many great theologians and scientists have noted that although science and religion may come close to one another, drawn together sometimes like magnets; they are best kept separate, because, like oil and water, they just don’t mix.
To quote the late Stephen jay Gould: “Science gives us the ages of rocks, and religion the Rock of Ages.”
The two should be good friends that talk often together and are full of passion but they should learn humility as well. They should awe at how each can describe a beautiful and wonderful world worthy of our attention.
The leap of faith, that wonderful human experience driven by faith, hope, and intuition, no longer exists when one has the option of leaping with a safety net. Pseudo-scientific attempts to explain the divine in scientific terms provide a safety net manufactured from rice paper and suspended from twigs. True faith requires no science.
Closing Hymn: “Morning Has Broken” Number 38
Closing Words (Jimmy)
From Charles Darwin “With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us.”
And from the book of John: “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Amen
Postlude: