5. Hybridization and Law (Remastered)

Hybridization and Law

R.J. Rushdoony

Our Scripture is Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. Our subject is ‘Hybridization and Law.’ 

First of all, Leviticus 19:19:

“Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”

Then, Deuteronomy 22:9-11

“Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.”

Very recently I was at a college speaking, and I was interested in an article in the student paper written by a young woman. It had reference to our attitudes towards people we would regard as criminals. The basic point of view of this girl can best be stated by quoting from her article. She takes various sentences that reflect common opinion and then answers them.... The first quote: 

“I can’t imagine ever having a homosexual for a friend.” 

Her answer to this: 

“Can you honestly imagine any of your friends not living with some awfully serious hang-ups?” 

Then another quote:

“‘Westmont students should know the Christian answer to marijuana.’ 

[Her statement - RJR]

(Just what is the ‘Christian’ answer? Or is there more than one possible position? Is the use of marijuana inherently evil? Is it wrong because it’s illegal? What happens if the law is changed?)”

Another quote:

“I am repulsed by the thought of homosexuality, drug addiction, and prostitution.” [Her comment - RJR]

(Some people are repulsed by ignorance of social conditions, hypocrisy, false piety, and willing detachment from reality.)

“I can’t afford the time to become socially involved in the community public of Santa Barbara. After all, my first responsibility is to be a student!” 

And her answer: 

“How can I afford NOT to become involved? What does being a student mean? Can it ever exclude being a person and all that that means?” ⁱ

Now of course, this girl’s attitude is antinomianism. It is the ethics of love applied to every situation. When people abandon the law of God and substitute forth the ethics of love, what they are saying thereby is that situation ethics is the only real ethics because if love is going to prevail, then you apply love as the situation warrants it, and you have no more law, you’ve destroyed it. The Bible, of course, says love is the fulfilling of the law, but in this anti-Biblical conception of love, love becomes the destruction of the law.

Unfortunately, this antinomianism prevails today in modernist as well as in fundamentalist circles. You find it among Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Baptists, Roman Catholics, and every other circle today. The reason for this is simply that the doctrine of love as a kind of cure-all has taken the place of law. Without law, and without Biblical love, which is the fulfilling of the law, society breaks down. Thus it is that laws such as we read today are extremely important because they give us basic social guidelines. And yet, the average person would say if you cited these laws that I read today, Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11, the average person would say, “Why, these have nothing to do with us, we are under grace and not under law.” Which is, as we have seen previously, a perversion of Scripture. 

Now, let us approach these verses of Scripture as law, which is what they declare themselves to be. There are certain implications immediately that appear. First of all, “Thou shalt not kill” being the overall commandment, and these laws being subordinate aspects of this commandment, Thou shalt not kill, it is clear that they favour fertility. To harm or destroy life apart from God’s Law is forbidden. The hybrid is clearly a violation of this law. 

Now, these are case laws. We have seen previously that the Bible gives us in the Ten Commandments the basic principles and categories of the law, and then in the various specific legislation gives us case laws which illustrate these laws, which set forth a minimal case, and if it is true in the minimal case, it is true in every other. 

The hybrid frustrates the purpose of creation. All things, we are told, according to Genesis, were created with their seed in themselves, destined to be fertile. Hybridization seeks to improve God’s work. It seeks to gain the best of two diverse but somewhat related things. The result is a limited advantage, but a long-range loss, including sterility. 

Second, these laws clearly require a respect for God’s creation. We are not to change one kind into another, or to attempt it. All things, we are told, were created good. Now, when we hold to evolution, we cannot see all things as created good because evolution is the survival of the fittest, and the best you can say about anything is that it is the fittest, not that it is the best, not that it is morally the most desirable thing. And [though] it has survived thus far, it may not survive in the next ten thousand years, so that man, for example, we are told, may be a mistake.

Thus, we cannot under an evolutionary perspective see all things as created good. But man under God has been created good and the world around him has been created good. Man can kill and eat plants and animals to use this creation under God’s Law but he cannot tamper with it, he cannot hybridize, which is to violate God’s kind. And the penalty for it, of course, is sterility. You can cross a horse and a donkey, but the mule is sterile. You can put all kinds of new variety of squash and carrots and the like on the market, but the penalty for these is sterility, they will not produce a seed. And while they will have certain advantages, the mule has certain advantages over the horse, they have marked disadvantages, a greater frailty, sensitivity, nervousness as with the mule, so that there are a real handicaps.

Third, related to this law against hybridization, are the sexual laws with regard to violation of mankind. Laws against homosexuality, and laws against bestiality, which appear, for example, in Leviticus 18:22-23 and many other places in Scripture. These practices were a part of the cults of chaos, the religious practices of antiquity, and they appear again in every culture when there’s a revolutionary movement, and this is why they are reappearing now. 

According to Scriptures the penalty for these offenses is death. This was the law in early America, the death penalty, and it was enforced. It is significant that Merrill Unger’s Bible Dictionary, which is premillennial and dispensationalist in its perspective, will not mention the death penalty for these offenses as a part of Scripture. This is the radical antinomianism of so many today. 

Now, fourth, St. Paul, as he refers to these laws, takes the law with regard to the use of an ox and an ass together, and he brings out the broader implications of this law. He declares in 2 Corinthians 6:14: 

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?^”

So that, very clearly, St. Paul states here what already had been stated repeatedly in Scripture, that mixed marriages, marriages between believers and unbelievers, are forbidden. But at the same time, he also states that unequal yoking is the principle in the Deuteronomic passage: 

“Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.”  ⁱⁱ

What is the principle there? Unequal yoking. So that unequal yoking of any kind runs counter to God’s Law. This appears also very clearly in the law with respect to marriage. Man was created in the image of God and woman was created from man in the reflected image of God in man. And woman was termed a ‘helpmeet,’ which means a reflection, or front, or mirror. In other words, the woman is to reflect the man’s nature and supplement, assist, further him in his calling. This means, therefore, that if they are unequally yoked she cannot be of any assistance to him in his calling. So that, if it is inter-religious marriage, or interracial, or intercultural, normally the disparity is too great for it to be a valid marriage in terms of God’s standards. The burden, thus, of God’s Law is clearly against inter-religious marriage, or interracial, or intercultural marriages in that they normally go against the very idea of community which marriage is to establish. 

But ‘unequal yoking’ applies, of course, to much more than marriage, it applies to any kind of social integration. Today we are told that we must have a world, according to the UN Charter, in which there are no discriminations with respect to race, color, or, in other words, there can be no religious lines of discrimination. But this, of course, is an unequal yoking.

Now, to return to the second point; the fact that this law clearly requires a respect for God’s creation. We say that God pronounced, on creating all things, that they were good. Men cannot treat their fellow man or any part of creation therefore with contempt. Thus, while we cannot have unequal yoking, we cannot have a contemptuous treatment of any man or any part of creation. Animals, for example, we are told in one series of laws in Scripture, are to be treated with kindness and with humanity. For example, the Sabbath rest is to be rest for animals as well. The Sabbath year the fields are allowed to remain so that strangers and wild animals may eat of the harvest. Again, the threshing ox must not be muzzled. The laborer, whether it is an animal or a man, is worthy of its hire.

Again, the law forbids killing both mother and young, of birds for example, or any animals, so that there would be no destruction of species. Again, there must be a return of stray domestic animals; both as a kindness to the animals and their owners. Overburdened beasts must be helped, and so on. But respect for creation means far more than kindness to animals, it means recognizing God’s handiwork, that He has a purpose for all things. 

One of the things that characterized my schooling from the early grades on up to university, and apparently is still with us, because I heard it on the radio this morning, was the idea that all bacteria are bad, and that the scientific ideal is a germ-free, bacteria-free world. Of course, such a world would mean death. And yet, we are actually told now that by 1990 we will have such a sterile world that milk itself being rendered totally sterile, will sit on a table and will never spoil. In such a world, of course, not only bacteria will be gone, but man also. Such a world and such a science represent a travesty on God’s creative purpose. It is interesting to note what Lewis Mumford has said with regard to this kind of science: 

“’What will be left of the plant world,’ Dr. Mumford states, ‘if we allow the basically village culture, founded on a close symbiotic partnership between man and plants, to disappear.… There are plenty of people working in scientific laboratories today who, though they may still call themselves biologists, have no knowledge of this culture except by vague hearsay and no respect for its achievements.

‘They dream of a world composed of synthetics and plastics, in which no creatures above the rank of algae or yeasts would be encouraged to grow.’

A biological factor of safety existed when 70 to 90 per cent of the world’s population was engaged in cultivating plants. ‘In the past century this biological factor of safety has shrunk. If our leaders were sufficiently awake to these dangers, they would plan not for urbanization but for ruralization.’

… As insects are eliminated, Dr. Mumford points out, the plants that depend on them for fertilization are doomed.” ⁱⁱⁱ

We might add that in some parts of the country, the pollination of trees in the spring is becoming very much a problem. In fact, in some parts of Pennsylvania there is a crisis in this respect because the indiscriminate spraying by air of Federal agencies has killed off the bees and wiped out beekeepers. Dr. Francois Murgen of Yale University has called attention of what this fundamental disrespect for creation is doing and his analysis is a very interesting and telling one:

“A fuller understanding of natural processes is an absolute must if we are to avoid major environmental calamities. Some past environmental disasters are attributable to our abuse of natural systems.…

The World Health Organization carried on extensive programs of pest control for the people of Borneo. In order to eradicate mosquitoes, considered a pest of serious dimension, the Organization sprayed villages extensively with DDT. Shortly after the applications, palm-thatched roofs of the village houses began to collapse. It turned out that a certain caterpillar which feeds on the palm fronds had suddenly increased. Because of its habitat the caterpillar was not exposed to the DDT, but a predatory wasp which ordinarily keeps the caterpillar population at non-destructively low levels was vulnerable to the poison and consequently was annihilated.

Harrison goes on to relate further ecological reactions to spraying. To eradicate flies inside the village houses, World Health workers sprayed DDT indoors. Up to that time the flies were controlled by a little lizard that inhabits many homes in Borneo. The lizard kept on eating the flies which were now heavily contaminated with DDT, and then the lizards began to die. The lizards in turn were eaten by house-cats and the house-cats in turn died from DDT poisoning. As a result, of cats being wiped out, the rats began to invade the dwellings. As we all know, rats not only consume human food but they also pose a serious threat of spreading diseases, such as the plague.”

The rats appeared in such large numbers that the World Health Organization had to parachute a fresh supply of cats into Borneo in an attempt to restore a balance that had been successfully operative but unrecognized by the technicians who had come to help. I recount this true and recent story because it shows the interrelationship between living beings and their environment. To live in harmony with his environment man must modify many of his actions, and know nature. In reality we can consider ourselves lucky that none of the “scientific discoveries” has apparently interrupted the food chain processes to the extent where they have caused major catastrophes.

So far, I have talked about very elementary facts which are well known to ecologists. If, however, these things are known that the administrators and engineers who plan manipulations of the environment, they seldom make it apparent. The myth that technology is the solution to all our problems, however, is being questioned more and more by planners, as well as by the public at large. ” ^iv

However, we can add that Dr. Mergen is too optimistic in feeling that it is being questioned. The damage continues very extensively. I myself have seen in one area where I lived some years ago a decision that, to get rid of coyotes that were killing deer, they would have to kill the coyotes. So, a coyote-killing program went into effect. And, of course, in no time at all they had a deer problem because the weak deer were now breeding, whereas before all the weaklings were killed, the weak and the diseased ones, by the coyotes!

But they also had a problem in a that now the squirrels took over the area because the squirrels and the field mice, which were before killed by the coyotes also, were now without a natural enemy. And so they had to embark on a further program of killing the squirrels, but, of course, the poisons went into the ponds then saw a radical death of the fish in the pond, and so they had a mosquito problem, and so they had to then consider spraying for mosquitoes. In other words, the more they acted, the more damage they did, forgetting that all these things have, in God’s providence, a purpose. Wipe out your squirrels and your gophers and your moles and the like and what do you do? You create erosion because the amount of water absorbed in heavy rainfall by these mole and squirrel and gopher holes is tremendous, and it is an important part of both aerating the soil and seepage of water downward.

It is interesting to note that in some areas, a little bit in the way of an old-fashioned respect for God’s creation is coming back and is doing wonders. For example, in Griggsville, Illinois, a far-seeing man, J.L. Wade, started to campaign in 1962 to treat God’s creatures with some respect, beginning with the purple martin. The report is very interesting, and it is revelatory of what a knowledge of God’s creation does in the way of producing a more successful treatment of problems. 

“The Griggsville campaign started modestly in 1962. The Jaycees of Griggsville installed 28 purple martin houses along its main street. The purple martins moved in, and the town had some astonishing results. Citizens found that their mosquito problem was solved! At last towns-people were able to enjoy lawns, gardens and patios without annoyance. That was only the beginning. For the town’s annual Fair, it had been customary to spray with chemical pesticide to control biting insects. But that year, by some fortuitous circumstance, the usual shipment was side-tracked to another town, and failed to arrive in Griggsville in time. But the purple martins had arrived and were hungry. Since these birds live solely on live insects they thrived at the Fair. When the chemical firm’s troubleshooter arrived in town and apologized for the shipping delay, the fair committee told him they no longer needed the pesticides. In their words: ‘We told him if he could find a fly or mosquito on the premises we’d order ten times as much spray. He couldn’t and took the order back.’

The Griggsville experience broadened out, to neighboring farmers, who recognized the economic values of attracting purple martins. Cattlemen, for example, learned that nesting boxes for these birds, set in stockyards, were an asset by having fewer insects bother livestock. This yielded better cattle gains.

The initial purple martin project in Griggsville was so successful that it soon involved the local Boy Scouts, school children, community park board, Western Illinois Fair Board, businessmen, farmers, orchardists, state and municipal officials, conservationists, civil workers throughout the nation, and the snowballing continues. The promotion of the purple martin spread to many other communities. For example, in La Verne, Iowa, $200 worth of insecticide had already been purchased, but after attracting purple martins, they did not have to resort to even 25¢ worth of spray!”

The article goes on to quote how much has been done in many areas. Then it said:

“In publicising this bird, the fact has often been quoted that a single purple martin can devour about two thousand flying insects daily. Mr. Wade feels that this is a gross underestimation. Based on research, the actual average seems to be between ten thousand and twelve thousand mosquitoes daily when these insects are plentiful. The purple martin will also eat flies, beetles, moths, locusts, weevils, and other insects which we consider damaging or as nuisances.” ^v

The list can go on indefinitely, all insects and animals have their God-given place in the basic life-cycle of nature, and a respect for God’s creation involves creating all things with knowledge and with restraint. 

Even weeds, as Dr. Cocannouer has pointed out in a very important article called Weeds, Guardians of the Soil, are important. In that weeds go down to the subsoil and bring up minerals to the subsoil and therefore have a place in the life cycle, and weeds can restore soil that is worn out. Years ago, Louis Pasteur said that, “With diseases, the soil is everything,” that is, the condition of the recipient. 

Sir Albert Howard, for example, in his experiment with animals in India, shows that when the animals were given proper nourishment, when they were on good feed and good soil, they could mingle with animals that had diseases like rinderpest, septicaemia, and foot and mouth diseases without contracting them. 

Thus, the Christian, as he faces the world, must respect the world. He must realize that the world is not an enemy, it is not a hostile element, it is God’s handiwork. The world was created by God, and we are always to remember as we deal with the world, “What was God’s purpose here in creating this?” But at the same time, while the world was created essentially good, it is fallen and not normative. Thus, perfectionism with regard to nature is anti-Christian. Everything has a purpose within creation, but God created man and set him in the garden of Eden with a purpose to use and to develop nature. Thus, while hybridization is forbidden, the improvement of various species is definitely a part of our responsibility. 

Thus, we do not look back to Eden, we look forward to the Kingdom of God. Those who hold to a perfectionism with regard to nature are anti-Christian. The logic of this perfectionism with regard to nature, holding nature as normative, is to eat raw foods only, because you can’t improve on nature. It is to be a nudist, because you can’t improve on nature, it is to deny housing, because housing is an improvement on nature.

This is all very, very definitely hostile to Scripture because, while creation is essentially good from the Biblical perspective, it is to be developed by man. There is to be an improvement in terms of the guidelines laid down by God. Thus, hybridization is not Christian, but improvement is definitely the Christian responsibility. Hybridization and unequal yoking involve a fundamental disrespect for God’s handiwork and it leads to futile experimentation. But for us as creationists, the fertility and the potentiality of the world rests in His law, in its pattern, in its fixity. 

Dr. Walter Lambert, who has won international eleven international prizes in genetics, has stated that his advantage over other geneticists is that they had no sense of law so they indulged in futile experimentation. But he as a creationist believes that there are fundamental laws, and he works within that framework, so that he does not waste his time on futile experimentation. Thus, the significance of these laws with respect to hybridization is that the penalty for their violation is sterility. But respect for these laws leads to vitality, to fertility, and to scientific progress.

We are therefore under God to look ahead to a nature that surpasses the Garden of Eden, to a nature that abounds in fertility and improves progressively as man under God works to establish the Kingdom of God.

Let us pray.

* * *

Our Lord and our God, we thank thee that thou hast created all things good, and hast ordained that we as thy servants, as kings over creation unto thee, have a calling to exercise dominion, to subdue the earth, and to develop it under thee and in terms of thy law. Bless us to this purpose. Recall us, our Father, to thy Word and to thy Law that we might use thy handiworks to thy glory and to our happiness and prosperity in thee. Bless us to this purpose. In Jesus' name. Amen. 

* * *

Are there any questions now with respect to our lesson?

Yes?

[Audience member] Some of these conservationists would fence off the countryside and not allow us to use anything for our own benefit. ^vi

[Rushdoony] Yes. Well, the strict conservationists, who believe just in preserving, not in using, are of course carrying something too far. Actually, the conservationists are very often creating areas where the greatest exploitation goes on. The Federal areas, the Federal lands, the Federal forests which are set aside are not the best areas of conservation, for example, with respect to timber. Because the Federal government is not operating on a dollar and cents basis, the areas that are set aside by the Federal government in the name of conservation are leased out, many of them to ranchers, and these are wealthy corporate entities who run cattle exclusively in government lands. Whereas, for example, an area such as that owned by warehousers will have far better conservation, true conservation, because it is in terms of a continuing use.

For example, there is almost as much forest in Maine today as there was when the first settlers landed in Maine. Moreover, these forests now, because they are operated in terms of commercial use, are better-operated and more productive than in their natural condition. Thus, corporate entities, large corporate entities, are geared to production for human use, with a long-range program to preserve their future income. The devastation you find in foresting, for example, is largely with small timber firms that simply lease an area and cut it and move on; their perspective is short-term.

Now the strict conservationist, who feels that utility is no consideration, is often preceding his own end, because nature was created by God to have utility, and what we need is a happy balance between exploitation and no usefulness at all. 

[Audience member] The lumber companies get the thin end of the stick in many media reports. ^vii

[Rushdoony] Yes, there is generally an unfair picture presented of the lumber companies by the Federal government. Not that there have not been abuses, but that the abuses are equally as real if not greater in federally-controlled areas.

Yes?

[Audience member] Doesn’t the introduction of a species like the purple martin upset the natural balance in that area? ^viii

[Rushdoony] No, what they had done is to restore the balance of nature in that area. The purple martins has its natural enemies, but the point was that spraying was killing off these birds as well as others. 

[Audience member] It seems wrong to introduce coyotes to an area. ^ix

[Rushdoony] They were simply restored.

Yes?

[Audience member] ‘Love’ as taught in a great many churches seems to be equal to accepting everything. ^x

[Rushdoony] Yes. ‘Love’ is total acceptance of everything. It means then that you have to accept everything, tolerate everything. It means that there is no discrimination with respect to good and evil, right and wrong. This is the modern definition of ‘love,’ and of course, it is thoroughly anti-Christian. 

[Audience member] Are these linsey-woolsey laws about mixing of fabrics still extant today? Is it literal or symbolic? ^xi

[Rushdoony] Yes. It is, yes. It is both literally meant as well as symbolically. There is to be no mingling in one garment, you see. And of course, this was tried some years ago; mingling linen and wool, and it was very unsuccessful. It doesn’t produce a good garment and it violates a principle.

[Audience member] What about synthetics? ^xii

[Rushdoony] Synthetics are usually made out of one material. It means that two diverse materials are not to be used in the same garment.

Yes?

[Audience member] I have some pants made from Dacron fibre, it’s a synthetic fabric mixed with cotton. Would that violate this principle?

[Rushdoony] Well, that’s a very interesting point. I would say that we would have to say that it is not valid. And it brings out an interesting point for me because the use of dacron leads very definitely to heavy perspiration. There is something about it that is not healthy so far as I’m concerned, and others report the same thing. 

[Audience member] Well, I find it to be very efficient. 

[Rushdoony] Yes, that could be. But there’s still a principle; the Bible requires the integrity of [principles].

Yes.

[Audience member] These laws are, for me, beyond comprehension. ^xiii

[Rushdoony] That’s true. Why, I cannot say, but it is still stated as a principle, a general principle that we are to avoid hybridization. And then we are to avoid mingling of dissimilar things. Now, we don’t always know the reason for a law, but ultimately, if we abide by it, we find that some kind of principle develops. Someday we may know why this is a valid principle, meanwhile, we’re simply asked to abide by it, even though we don’t understand it.

We should be careful in this area. In other words, before we move too rapidly into any area to try to improve on God’s work, we need to treat what He does with respect. There’s a fundamental principle here, it summons us to be cautious. It is possible that, on due study, that such a thing can be verified. 

Now, the rabbis puzzled over this a great length with regard to clothing, with regard to hybridization and so on. They thought, for example, that you could sow wheat in an orchard because the two were too diverse to create a problem one for another, but you could not sow wheat and barley together in the same field or adjoining one another.

Now there’s a good principle there and the revinict conclusion which appears in the Talmud. There is no possible conflict between wheat and apples, for example. There is for wheat and barley. 

So, in terms of that principle, perhaps someone who has a bench here could explore synthetic materials and see. But this was the direction of rabbinic thinking and exploration on this subject. I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert in this field, but I do feel we need to proceed with caution. This is an area for experts. I’m simply stating the guidelines which Scripture gives us here and then to deal with the application will take an expert in some areas.

Yes?

[Audience member] Could you comment on the use of the word ‘evil’ ascribed by Moses to God in his prayer of intercession in Exodus 32:12?

“Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.” ^xiv

[Rushdoony] We have to understand the terminology and the use of the language there. Very often when you have a problem with translation it is that subtle nuances of words do not communicate themselves. Now, what the Lord planned to do there was to bring judgement on all Israel. The judgement would be evil in the sight of the people, that is, to do them harm. So that the sense of ‘evil’ there is to harm them, it is the destroy them, it is not ‘evil’ in the sense that we think of it. In other words, our language is limited here. 

For example, in the New Testament, there are three words in the Greek for ‘love’ with very sharply differing meanings… in Koine Greek, rather. And two of those words are used in the New Testament. And yet their meaning is so different, we only have one word to translate them by, ‘love,’ so it is here. What it means by ‘evil’ is to be evil in their sight. In other words, for you to be disciplined it’s evil in your sight, it doesn’t strike you as good, but it is not evil objectively. This is the significance there.

They were still sinners, and so judgement seemed evil to them. And it’s simply the usage of the language there, this is what it meant. It seemed evil to them, and so the Bible speaks of it as ‘doing evil unto them,’ doing that which is harmful. It is not ‘evil’ in the objective sense of ultimate wrong, [but] evil in the sense of something is harmful. In other words, we only have one full word to translate subtle Hebrew terms by, and that’s our problem.

Yes?

[Audience member] How, then do we define ‘love?’

[Rushdoony] Love in Scripture is the fulfilling of the law. It involves the keeping of the Ten Commandments. Love to God is keeping the whole Ten Commandments. Love to our neighbor is keeping the ‘second table’ of the law, to respect his right to life, to home, to property, to reputation, in word, thought, and deed. So that, as St. Paul sums it up:

“…love is the fulfilling of the law.” ^xv

Our time is now up. 

I’d like to call your attention to these notices you’ll find in the back of the room. The Chalcedon studies lectures four Monday evenings beginning tomorrow evening at the ____ home, in San Marino. Dr. Bolton Davidheiser, tomorrow night he shall speak on the historical background and significance of the problem, that is, of evolution. He is a distinguished biologist, and he has a major work which will be appearing within a few months which I believe will be one of the most important things ever written on the subject. It’s a major manuscript and highly readable. I think you will find his four lectures of particular interest, so I urge you to attend tomorrow evening at 8:00pm and for the following three weeks through March the 3^rd.

Our time is up, and we are now adjourned.

i. Kathi Robinson, “Questionable Quotes,” in Horizon (student paper, Westmont College). (January 30, 1969), p. 3.

ii. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Dt 22:10.

iii. “Plant Dominion Key to Man’s Survival,” Oakland, California Tribune (Sunday, August 18, 1968), p. 13–CM.

iv. Francois Mergen, “When It Rained Cats in Borneo,” in American Forests, vol. 75, no. 1 (January, 1969), p. 29.

v. Beatrice Trum Hunter, “The Book Hunter,” in Natural Food and Farming, November, 1968, a review of J. L. Wade, What You Should Know About the Purple Martin, America’s Most Wanted Bird (Griggsville, Illinois: Griggsville Wild Bird Society).

vi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

viii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

ix.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

x.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xiii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xiv. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 32:12.

xv. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 13:10.