Excerpted from The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, edited by John Clover Monsma. New York: G.P. Putman’s Sons, 1958



By Earl Chester Rex, Mathematician and Physicist

B.Sc, Notre Dame University, M.Sc., University of Wash­ington. Formerly Lecturer in Mathematics, University of Southern California; presently Associate Professor of Physics, George Pepperdine College. Author of technical volume: “Vector Analysis.” Member of Mathematicians’ Association of America, American Association of Physics Teachers, etc. Specialist in vector analysis.


Popular conceptions are often misleading. It is, for instance, generally believed that science is like a brilliant and talkative old man who knows all the answers. Instead, science is like a young man who asks a lot of questions. He does much thinking and pondering. He attempts to keep careful, classified notes. The typical scientist is never satisfied that he has the final truth on anything at all.

Again, it is believed that science maintains a straight-line course in a chain of deductive reasoning. In reality, science may be likened to a climbing vine, ever trying to reach higher. The path of science is a devious, winding one. Carbon 14 dating, for example, is today being scrutinized if not revised. Thus, the path of science’s direction must be con­tinually changed, and oftentimes it is necessary to go back and take a different path.

Mathematics, with which I have something to do, is like a flashlight attempting to light up the path, but the direction of its beam must continually change to conform to the direc­tion of the path of science. I use the accepted principle in science which governs the choice between two or more conflicting theories. According to this principle, the theory which explains all the pertinent facts in the simplest way is adopted. This same principle was used, in the long ago, to decide between the Ptolemaic, or earth-centered, theory and the Copernican theory which claims that the sun is the center of the solar system. The Ptolemaic theory was so involved and so much more complicated than the Copernican that the earth-centered idea was discarded.

But although science has its limitations, its theories and conclusions have proved of inestimable value, also with respect to the universe and the God of the universe. A fair and impartial study of scientific phenomena has convinced me that God exists, and that He controls and directs the universe. There is “central control,” and the controlling Power is God.

There is evidence that seemingly unrelated phenomena have a common explanation. This is seen in Coulomb‘s laws for the attractions or repulsions between two charges, or between two magnetic poles. By comparing these with Newton’s law of universal gravitation I was struck with the similarities of these three laws. Each has the force propor­tional to the product of the two charges, pole strengths or masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. To be sure, there are differences. For one thing, while two like charges or poles repel, two masses attract Also, while electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light, gravitational attraction travels at an infinite speed. But these differences show they are of different things, and impel us to study the whole matter more thoroughly.

This has quite often resulted in marvelous implications in other investigations. The Parity Conservation Principle, in a similar manner, seems to indicate a unity of purpose. Accord­ing to this principle, electrons which are emitted from a system of oriented nuclei are emitted symmetrically in a solid angle about the nuclei. It was found, however, that they were emitted in a preferred direction relative to nuclear spin. Again, we note a break in the pattern when we study the neutrino. It does not obey the Parity Principle. It would seem that the neutrino knows right from left and communi­cates this information to particles with which it is associated in decay processes. These and many other instances indicate the origin and control of the universe by one God rather than many rival gods, as pagans hold.

We could teach Descartes a thing or two about geometry …

Biologists will tell us a similar story, so far as control and arrangement are concerned. They find the greatest of effi­ciency in the formation of physical bodies. The blood cor­puscles of the human body are of just the right shape and size to do the work for which they are made. The same holds true of other organs, parts and particles. In the world of insects we need only to examine the honeycomb in a beehive, among thousands of other objects, to find the same perfect arrange­ments and similarity. Every one of the millions of beehives throughout the world are constructed geometrically, with the greatest precision, to give the greatest efficiency. If this and a great deal more does not indicate the intelligence of the one Creator, the control and direction of the one supreme God, I surrender what little claim I may have to being a scientist.

As a scientist I find my conclusions concerning God and the universe confirmed by the sacred Scriptures. I happen to believe those Scriptures. I believe all they say concerning the origin and direction of this universe. Scripture and science agree. That is to say, Scripture wisely and properly inter­preted. I have no use for critics who claim that because certain historical and archeological details in the Bible are undependable, for that reason we can hardly rely on what the Bible says concerning creation and Divine providence. Besides, who informed the gentlemen that those historical and archeological details are undependable? They have been caught in errors too often for us to accept their flip­pant assertions. The Bible account of the Egyptians mak­ing brick with straw was wrong, because excavations gave no evidence of straw having been used! Now archeologists find that the straw was first made into a “brew,” then mixed with clay, and thus used for bricks, to make them harder. That is one of many, many examples of Bible critics getting off the beam.

Any present theory of the origin and maintenance of the universe which ignores or denies the Bible account either doesn’t explain all the pertinent facts or else becomes hope­lessly involved and obscured. I, for myself, prefer to be governed by the old, accepted principle mentioned here-above. I prefer the simplicity of the Genesis account.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: