The Facts of Biology Scorn Evolution
January 20th, 1957 @ 8:15 AM
THE FACTS OF BIOLOGY SCORN EVOLUTION
Dr. W. A. Criswell
1-20-57 8:15 a.m.
You’re listening to the services, the 8:15 o’clock early morning services, of the First Baptist Church in Dallas. This is the pastor bringing the second morning message in a series on the creation of man based upon the first chapter of Genesis and the twenty-sixth verse – "And God said, ‘Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness" [Genesis 1:26] – and the twenty-seventh verse: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God, created He him; male and female created He them" [Genesis 1:27]. And the title of the address this morning is The Facts of Biology Scorn Evolution.
It is an astounding thing that, in the passing of time, men have come to accept the theory of evolution as being true. Without scrutiny, without apology, without defense, it has come to be an accepted doctrine in the scholastic and academic and scientific and even ecclesiastical world.
For example, in this week’s issue of Time magazine, on page 38, there is a little article about these services here in our First Baptist Church. And the little article in Time magazine begins with this sentence: "For a long time, it looked as if the battle against evolution was about over." Then, it speaks of the thing that we are attempting to do in challenging that theory in these early morning services.
What does Time magazine mean when it says that it looked as if the battle against evolution was about over? Does it mean that the battle against evolution was going against the doctrine and the theory? No. What the magazine means is that the battle against evolution is about over. It’s been lost. Men have come to conclude that evolution is a full and acceptable theory of the origin and development of all the forms and phenomena of life that we see around us.
Another instance of that: I received this week a gracious note from the illustrious federal judge, Judge T. Whitfield Davidson [Thomas Whitfield Davidson, 1876-1974], and the great federal jurist sent to me a copy of a lesson that he had delivered to his Sunday School class entitled: "The Faith of Our Fathers." And on page fifteen of that lesson that the illustrious judge taught his Sunday School class, he says, and I quote from Judge Davidson: "Turning to Mr. Darwin and his Origin of Species [On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859], his conclusions have been universally accepted, and he who does not respect them is not considered even literate."
But, just for the interest of it, may I continue with what the illustrious federal judge has to say about Mr. Darwin [Charles Darwin, 1809-1882]. I quote again: "However, the basis of his conclusions upon which he has founded his theory is but little above a surmise. Under the rules of circumstantial evidence, he could not establish any fact before a judge and a jury. If his theory and teaching be correct then, well, if then correct, he has done Christianity a great disservice. History reveals" – still quoting from Judge Davidson’s lesson – "History reveals man of six thousand years ago the same as of today. If the apes have not produced a new man in six thousand years, how do we know they ever did? The ape is still with us. He’s in the zoo. He’s in the jungle. Why shouldn’t he give us another specimen of his offspring? A later edition might be an improvement upon the first." End quote from Judge Davidson.
I say it has become an accepted theory and explanation of the phenomena and development of life everywhere. In Henry Fairfield Osborn’s book, The Origin and Evolution of Life  – he is dead now, but he was a great American paleontologist – this late scientist wrote, "In this review, we need not devote any time or space to any fresh arguments for the truth of evolution. The demonstration of evolution is a universal law of living nature, is the greatest intellectual achievement of the nineteenth century. Evolution has outgrown the rank of a theory" – end quote from Professor Osborn [Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1857-1935].
Yet, in that same book entitled The Origin and Evolution of Life, in that same book and in the face of what he’s just said, he devotes that first half of that book to proving that the origin and evolution of life is impossible without spontaneous generation. And he thinks that spontaneous generation of life must be proved before anything of evolution can become anything except a theory. And yet the most impossible thing of proof in this world is the spontaneous generation of life.
This monstrous lie, this monstrous lie of the development of life through evolutionary processes, I say, has come to be the accepted theory in circles scholastic and academic and scientific and ecclesiastical. It is a denial of God. It is a denial of the human soul. It makes man a beast. It empties the world of all of those holy things that God reveals in His Book. And yet, it has become, I say, the accepted doctrine of the intellectual circles all around us.
It is the proposal this morning to avow and approve that the facts of biology scorn, the facts of biology scorn, repudiate, the theory and the hypothesis of evolution. The analogy we see all around us of change and development in life and nature do not support evolution, but they rather contradict it.
Many of us have visited the Smithsonian Institute, and, there, in that institution, you will find displays like this. Here will be a little two-cylinder gas buggy, and then all through the following years from the rudimentary form of that little gas buggy, you will see the automobile develop until it reaches its present place of style and beauty. And you will find demonstrated the evolutionary forms of the telephone and the telegraph and the radio and other scientific instruments from those first beginnings until their glorious consummation now. And, sometimes, you will use the word "evolution" referring to that development. But the theorists – but the theorists of this doctrine do not use evolution in that meaning and with that definition at all.
What you say when you refer to the evolution of the automobile, you are referring to development that has come to pass from the application of the genius of mind and the guiding hand of man. Each one of those developments in the automobile and in the radio and in the television is the expression of a man’s thought and a man’s mind and a man’s guiding genius. Were it suggested to you that those developments came by spontaneous generation, were it suggested to you that those developments came because of powers and laws inherent in that little gas buggy itself, you would say that’s preposterous and that’s impossible. And yet, that is exactly the sense in which the theorists used that word "evolution."
With regard to inorganic evolution, they refer to the development of inorganic matter from one form to another. And with regard to the development of organic evolution, they refer to the development of life from one form into another.
You say that it is preposterous for a man to believe that an automobile or a radio to develop of itself into anything else. It has to have a mind and a genius guiding that evolution, that development. If you were to take that little two-cylinder gas buggy and put it out on a vacant lot, and there, of its own self, of resident powers inherent within it, it began to develop and to evolve into all of the beautiful automobiles that we see today, that wouldn’t be evolution – not yet – because it is still an automobile. But, if while you observe that thing on the lot, it begins to sprout wings and develop into something else, say a jet bomber or a DC-7, and flew away, that would be evolution.
You say, "Well, that’s preposterous and insensible." Listen to me. That is no more preposterous and that is no more insensible than for a man to say that out of nothing, something came. And out of that something, an amoeba came. And out of that amoeba, a fish came. And out of that fish, an amphibian came. And out of that amphibian, a reptile came. And out of that reptile, a bird came. And out of that bird, a mammal came. And out of that mammal, a man came.
They are both preposterous and ridiculous and absurd. I say there is no substantiating fact for either one of them, demonstrable or observable, anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
Mutation, variation – mutants, varieties – are seen on every hand. There is a rose, and it’s a pink rose and a yellow rose and a red rose and a white rose – all kinds of roses. Those roses are mutants. They are varieties.
There are chickens, all kinds of chickens: little chickens and big chickens, black chickens and red chickens, yellow chickens and speckled chickens – all kinds of chickens. But they are mutants. They are varieties of the little creatures within their species. There is mutation everywhere, but there is transmutation nowhere – anywhere, any time, any place.
When that rose develops and develops and develops and progresses and progresses until it progresses into something different from a rose – say an orange tree – that is transmutation. That is evolution. When that chicken develops and develops and develops and develops to the place where it is no longer a chicken but it is something else – say, a cow or a horse – that is transmutation, and that is evolution.
The evolutionary hypothesis is unable to account for any of the vitally differing phenomena that we see in the world all around us. Here is nothing – nothing – and here is something. How do you explain that something that is in nothing – the great void of space around it?
"Well," the evolutionary hypothesis says, "why, that something evolved."
"Well, it evolved out of what?"
"Well, I don’t know."
"It evolved from where?"
"Well, I don’t know."
The answer of evolution is inevitably to any vital question and to any vitally differing phenomenon, "I do not know."
Herbert Spencer [1820-1903] of the nineteenth century sought to apply the arguments of organic evolution, proposed by Darwin, to inorganic matter – to the evolution of all of this universe that we see around us. But when he got back to the great crux of the problem, he had to say, "I have to begin with a first, great, unknowable cause."
The proverb of Latin is still true: Ex nihilo, nihil fit – "Out of nothing, nothing comes." Between space that is void and empty, nothingness; between nothingness and the slightest little speck of dust, there is a tremendous gulf that evolution cannot begin to explain. And evolution, as it is helpless before an explanation of the beginning of matter, so it is known as helpless in an explanation of the beginning of life and the forms of life.
This world teems with life. It is everywhere. There is life riding on every little speck of dust. There is life in every little drop of moisture. There is life in the air that we breathe. There is life in the depths of the ocean. There is life in the depths of the deepest caverns. There is life under the hot boiling Sahara suns. There is life in the little alkalai pools in the deserts. There is life everywhere.
How do you account for the presence of life in this world – life, omnipresent life, everywhere? How do you account for it? In my reading, I have only been able to find three different guesses of those who are evolutionists.
The first guess is this. Some of them say that life began on this planet by the riding of a little germ on a meteor that fell down into this earth, or the little germ of life fell through space and so came down to this planet. But that doesn’t solve the problem. That merely shifts it from one place to another place. Instead of accounting for it here, we have to account for it on some other planet. How did it come to pass there was life on that other planet or on that other sun? That doesn’t explain it.
The second theory – hypothesis, guess – that I’ve been able to read is some of these evolutionists say that life came to pass because of spontaneous generation. That’s the thing that I hear our boys and girls come to me with. They say, "My biology teacher and my science teacher said that life began in a green scum."
I am surprised at that and amazed and astounded at that for I had thought that in the latter part of the nineteenth century Louis Pasteur [1822-1895] demonstrated for all time that there is no such thing as the spontaneous generation of life.
You can take a piece of straw or a piece of grass and put it in water and let it sit for a while, and, soon, that stagnant water is teeming with all kinds of infusorians – little bitty animalcules. But every one of those little animalcules were born in that water because of the presence of life on the grass and the presence of life in the water. They grew from little cells or little spores or little seeds or little eggs.
Louis Pasteur demonstrated there’s no such thing in this earth as life coming from anything but antecedent life. If a thing is sterile, it is sterile forever. Never has there ever been any demonstrable proof that spontaneous generation of life ever occurred or ever will occur. Some of the great scientists say it is unthinkable and unimaginable.
Then the last guess is the one that I read now in the magazines and in the papers. The third guess about how life began on the part of the evolutionist is this: they say that it came about accidentally. For example, a great flash of lightning passed through these gaseous vapors that enveloped the earth, and it created a life that fell down into the ocean. And the ocean gave it length of days, and it begin to grow and evolve until, finally, the man emerges.
That guess reminds me of a little passage that I read at the bottom of a page in the Reader’s Digest in a recent issue. It says Professor Edwin Conklin [1863-1952], the great Princeton University biologist, says, and I quote from this great biologist: "The probability of life beginning from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory." Just about as likely. Just about as likely.
Not only is the hypothesis – the theory, the guess – of evolution unable to explain any of the differing phenomena that we see all around us – matter, life – but, another thing, the fixedness. The fixity of species is a rebuke to and a repudiation of evolution.
Listen to my word. A species is a solid, unbreakable unit in the organic world. God made it so. There may be varieties in the species. There may be mutation in the species. There may be change and develop in the species, but the species itself is unbreakable. It has never been demonstrated that the limits of a species has ever been passed – ever – and that is according to the law of God.
The Lord God said that the fowls of the air and the fish of the sea shall bring forth abundantly after their kind [Genesis 1:21]. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, and cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind" [Genesis 1:24]. And there is never any deviation from that law of God. Wherever a life form is, it gives birth to progeny after its kind and no exceptions – not any other kind, not any other type, not any other species, but always after its kind.
There’s no exception to that in geological time. There’s no exception to that in primeval time. There’s no exception to that in prehistoric time. There’s no exception to that in historical, observable time. There is no exception to that in contemporary time. The fixity of species is a blind alley of which evolution comes to a dead end. It is a Rubicon that evolution cannot cross. And, you know, there’s something good about that – something nice about that.
Somebody sent me a cartoon this week. And there are two little monkeys up there hanging on a tree. And one of the monkeys is scratching his head and the other monkey is nursing a little baby monkey in her arms. And the momma monkey says to the poppa monkey, "Thank goodness he’s normal. I was afraid of evolution."
But may we demonstrate that? The fixity – the fixity and the fixedness, the law of God that bound an unbreakable unit, I say that is a demonstrable fact anywhere, everywhere, in every geological age, and in observable time.
Let us take, for example, the infusorians – those little animalcules, those little tiny, tiny blobs and specks of protoplasm, those little unicellular animals. They are in profusion over this world in uncounted billions and trillions of numbers. They are everywhere.
Now, a protozoologist can look at those little infusorians that multiply in stagnant water, whose spores and seeds and eggs and cells are everywhere, a protozoologist can look at those little creatures and they are as different to him – and many of them to us who look at them through a microscope – they are as different as a horse from a cow and an ox from a pig and a donkey from a chicken – altogether different. As you look down there into that little microscopic world of teeming life, God’s multiplying creatures – as you look at them, why, here are the amoeba, there the paramecium, there the rhizopods, there the rotifers, here the euglena, there are the uvella, here are the Monera. They are everywhere, and they differ, I say, greatly as we differ up here in this large, observable world.
For example, they differ in locomotion. A paramecium is a slipper-like little unicellular animal with cilia – little hairs – all around his little unicellular body. And when they all go that way, why, he goes this way. When they all run that way, he goes that way. He propels himself by those little cilia, the little hairs working all around his body.
Now, a euglena, a euglena, is a little unicellular animal that elongated, and at the anterior end, at the head of the little cell, is one little cilium – just one little hair. And he propels himself like an airplane with a propeller going through, going through the atmosphere.
And then there is an amoeba. He doesn’t have any cilia. He’s just a little blob – a little infinitesimal, unicellular blob of protoplasm. And he propels himself by sticking out from his body what you call pseudopods – false feet, a little extension of himself. He’ll stick it out here, then he pours himself into that little extension, and he has arrived. That’s the way that they differ in locomotion.
Now, those little animalcules differ in food habits. Some of them have vacuoles. Some of them have little primitive mouths that open and shut. Some of them, like an amoeba, just spots a little diatom or another little piece of food and puts an arm around it, another arm around it, and he closes himself around it and absorbs it.
And they differ in their – in their breeding habits, in the way they propagate their progeny. Some of them just divide in two, and they are a marvel: one, then that breaks in two, and those two break into four, and so on. And then some of them give birth to spores, little seed-like things, and die. And, then, some of them actually conjugate. You have a male and female conjugating and so give birth to young.
They are amazingly different. But there is one category and one place by which they are all exactly alike, and it is this: every one of them gives birth to progeny exactly like itself, and there’s no exception to it. Those multiplying little creatures of God can be observed by the billions and the billions and the billions, and they can be observed through the thousands and the thousands of their generations. And, yet, through the thousands of their generations, they are all contemporary and they are all exactly alike.
The paramecium, after a thousand times, a thousand generations, is still the same paramecium. And the amoeba after thousands and thousands of observable generations is exactly the same amoeba. And the euglena is exactly the euglena. They never change. They never evolve. They never pass from one to the other. They are exactly as God made them in the beginning.
"Oh, Pastor, now you wait a minute. Now, you wait a minute. You have to realize that we’ve only seen those little teeny animalcules since the invention of the microscope. You have to remember that way back yonder in the geological ages we didn’t have any microscopes and back there in those geological ages those little creatures were evolving back there at another time, in another age."
Is that so? Is it? All right. Let’s see if that’s so. Way back yonder, at the beginning of life, they have what they call the Paleozoic Age. The Paleozoic Age was millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of years ago. If you want to add ten more millions to that, that’s all right. They do it. Up and down, up and down: ten millions to an evolutionist is nothing at all. That doesn’t bother him at all. He’s not in the framework of actual fact. He’s in the framework of hypothesis – of theory and guesswork. So ten millions to him, one way or the other, is nothing.
All right. Back yonder, in that Paleozoic Age, there was what they call a Silurian Period, and in that Silurian Period, there were little coral that were working on the bed of the ocean. And the fossilized life of that Silurian coral can be seen today. And – listen to me: after the passing of these millions and millions and millions and millions and then add ten more million to that – after the passing of these millions of years, the coral today that works on the bed of the ocean is exactly and identical like the Silurian coral that worked back there in the beginning of the dawn of life. It has never changed. It has never evolved. It is just the same. God set it that way. God made it that way.
All of these life forms are contemporary around us. It is sheer supposition. It is sheer postulation to say that an amoeba is older than a horse or a cow or any other one of God’s other creatures. We’re all here together.
And isn’t that a strange thing? Isn’t that an astounding fact? If a man came from an anthropoid, and an anthropoid came from another mammal, and that mammal came from a bird, and that bird came from a reptile, and that reptile came from a fish, and that fish came from a worm, and that worm came from an amoeba or any other protozoan, why is it you don’t see any of those vast transitional forms either in contemporary life or in geological age?
I say it is an astounding fact that out of the millions and billions and uncounted trillions of transitional forms that are supposed to have been between the development of an amoeba into a man, there is not one seen today nor is there one found in geological life or time or age or history – just one. Why don’t they produce just one and say, "Here is an example of a transitional form where one species transmuted into another species?" You can’t find it. You can’t produce it. You can’t demonstrate it. God fixed those species in solid, unbreakable units, and they are there according to the law of Almighty God.
Mr. Fair – I’ve forgotten his name – the great paleontologist of the British Museum – Mr. Etheridge [Robert Etheridge, 1819-1903]. Mr. Etheridge, the eminent paleontologist of the British Museum, one time said, "There is not one iota of proof in this great museum for the transmutation of species – not one." Not one.
There is no such thing. I repeat: the fixedness of species is an affront to and a repudiation of and a rebuke to the hypothesis of evolution.
In this little moment that remains – and we’re trying to go through these messages just as rapidly as we can to encompass them within this little time. In the little moment that remains, may I speak of one other thing that evolution cannot account for? Evolution cannot account for the presence of matter in this world – how something came out of nothing. Evolution cannot account for the beginning of life – how life came out of that something, out of matter. Nor can evolution anymore account for this marvelous mysterious psychic mental thing that we call mind, soul, spirit – the play of thought, the play of mind.
What does evolution say concerning the development of mind and where it came from? In the beginning of life – they have postulations like this. Little atoms of carbon and little atoms of nitrogen and little atoms of hydrogen and little and little atoms of other things along with a little sulfur and a little phosphorous – all of these atoms of nitrogen and oxygen and carbon and hydrogen and sulfur and phosphorous got together and life emerged.
That doesn’t explain anything. That’s a jugglery of words. It’s like water. A gas called hydrogen, a gas called oxygen, and they meet together and their little atoms form molecules of water. That doesn’t explain anything for the properties of water are still physical. They are metrical. They are inertial. They are substantive. They are physical. They have volume and weight and density and bulk and size and shape. They are still physical.
"Well, Preacher, isn’t a living animal physical?"
"He has physical properties: a little piece, a little speck, a little blob of protoplasm, has a shape and a size and a density and a measurement and form and weight."
Look! Wherever you meet life, wherever life emerges, there you meet a set of properties and qualities that are altogether non-spatial and non-metrical and non-measurable. You meet qualities that are in a different category altogether.
Wherever there’s life, for example, there is purposiveness. There is accommodation to circumstances. There is knowledge. There is memory. There is experience. There is choice.
How would you say that purposiveness has shape or color or density or weight? Would you say that purposiveness is round or it’s square, or just what density would you say that it has? These qualities of life are altogether in a different category from physical categories.
Could I illustrate that? In the sea, in the seas of the world, there are uncounted of billions and billions of little, tiny microscopic animals. Some of them are called Radiolaria. Others are called diatoms. Others are called foraminifera – all kinds of little animals in the ocean, little blobs of living protoplasm.
Now, some of those little, tiny animalcules that live in the sea – some of them build exquisite homes out of molecules of carbonate of chalk or lime, and others build their exquisite little homes out of silica or flint.
Now, what I want to know is this: how is it that one of those little diatoms, how is it that one of those little animalcules called Radiolaria, how is it that it knows how to choose between an atom, or a molecule of chalk and lime, or a molecule of silica? Who taught that little blob of life to distinguish, in that seawater, the difference between a molecule of chalk and a molecule of silica in order each to build his house in his own way?
"Why, Pastor, we got an answer for that. Darwin taught them all that."
"Well," said another, "No, I don’t think Darwin did. Einstein surely taught them that."
"No," another one says, "I don’t think Einstein did it. I did it."
For you to do that is just as likely and just as supposable and just as explicable as to say that that quality came out of physical properties.
God taught the little animal how to choose between a molecule of chalk and a molecule of silica in order to build its tiny, little house. Oh, I wish I had time this morning to speak of the wisdom of a little ant! "Go to the ant . . . consider her ways and be wise," said the wisest man and the other [Proverbs 6:6].
"There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise: The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer" [Proverbs 30:24-25]. Did you ever consider how little, tiny, and, yet, how wise an ant is? And, yet, all of those properties of preparation and wisdom and choice in the ants are nothing but the expression of little, tiny bits of living matter called nerves and ganglia.
And listen to me – the central ganglia – the central ganglion of an ant, by which it directs all its life – that little blob of living matter is not as big as the tenth part of the size of a pinhead. And, yet, that little ant will have beautiful, social ways and live in fine, social colonies. And they’ll divide their functions between queens and nurses and soldiers and watchmen and scavenger and gatherers of food. And they’ll prepare for their young, and they’ll prepare their food for a rainy day, and they are in all ways altruistic and very wise.
That little ant: how did that wisdom get in that little tiny blob of living matter? Who put it there? The ant is wiser than a cow and smarter than an ape. Well, maybe the ape descended from the ant or maybe the other way around. Maybe the ant descended from the ape.
Listen. You get into the realm of the ridiculous and the preposterous! There is a quality in the physical property that makes up living matter that is far beyond any quality that physical matter presents at all. It is something else. It is something other. It is nonmaterial.
And may I quickly summarize when I come to man? The evolutionist has one other thing to say about that development of mind, and it is this.
"You wait, Pastor, you wait, because, in the end, evolution of life," he says, "in the evolving upward of life," he says, "those qualities of mind became developed on the inside of that animal’s mind because of his fight for survival. It is the survival of the fittest. For you see," the theorist says, "for you see, the one that was smart enough to provide for his young and smart enough to provide for his home and smart enough to provide for the future, he was the one that lived and survived, and the others died."
Now, he has no explanation for where that mind came from. Those nonmaterial qualities in that living matter, he has no explanation for that. But, granting that, he has to have God. But, granting God, he says, "Granting that First Cause, why then these things develop in the conquest of life in the survival of the fittest."
Well, that’s a very beautiful idea. That is a very interesting theory until you look at the development of man.
The illustrious Dr. Winans? Winian called me last night and pointed out this identical thing to me, and it was an odd coincidence. I was working on it in this message at the very time that he called. Listen to me. Listen to me. In the evolving of a man, they say that these characteristics of a man came to pass because of his fight for survival, and the man that had these qualities lived and the man that didn’t have these qualities died. So that’s where these qualities came from that evolved in a man.
All right, I want to ask a simple question, and many of us do. In that evolving of a man as he struggled for life and developed those qualities that fitted him for this life – I want to ask, "Just what part did the love of music play in that struggle for survival? Just what part did that love of art play in his struggle for survival? Just what part did the love of beauty play in that struggle for survival? And just what part did that play when a man can work out a deep recondite, erudite theory of mathematics? Just what part did that play in his fight for survival? When a man looks at a sunset and sees God’s colors, when a man looks in the firmament and sees the handiwork of God, when a man hears a beautiful old song and his heart responds like a chord that’s been plucked – what did that do to help him survive?"
Listen, that came from God. "In the image of God created He him" [Genesis 1:27]. And God loves His beautiful sunsets, and He paints them with the colors on His brush. And God loves His star-spangled firmament, and He gave that love to the man that He made. And God loves the music of the spheres and the singing of the angels in glory.
Did it not say in the Psalm of the man: "Thou hadst made him – Thou hast made him but a little lower than the angels, and Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour"? [Psalm 8:5] These gifts of his mind, these gifts of his soul, these gifts of his heart and his life are not physical properties. They are nonmaterial and non-spatial and non-metrical and non-measurable. They come from the image and the likeness of Almighty God who made him and sent him forth with all the faculties with which he is now endowed.
I’ve gone far over my time. Next Sunday morning, at this same hour, we’re going to take the witness of embryology – the witness of embryology – to the theory of evolution.
Now, for just a moment, we’re going to stand and sing a song, and while we sing that song, somebody you, somebody you, give his heart in trust to Christ. Somebody you, put his life in the fellowship of the church. While we sing the song, you come and stand by me. Anyone anywhere, a family you or one somebody you, out of the balcony – anywhere – to give your heart to the Lord or to put your life with us in the church, while we sing, you come while we stand and while we sing.