ChristiansUnite Forums

Theology => Bible Study => Topic started by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:04:33 AM

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:04:33 AM
This is fairly short, and it's excellent reading! I didn't find an easy way to obtain this in any format, but I highly recommend it. The theory of evolution has been completely DEAD for a long time, and this provides proof. In fact, it does much more than just bury the theory of evolution. ENJOY!


By Frederick C. Kubicek
Published 1993
Updated as of July 1998

Dedication & Acknowledgment
Chapter 1 ……More Than Genesis
Chapter II…… I'd Rather Not Talk About It
Chapter III….. Real Science Has Its Say
Chapter IV….. Oops, Sorry About That
Chapter V …... Let's Assume
Chapter VI …. Holy Hydrogen and Hitler
Chapter VII…. Higher Education
Chapter VIII… IQ Test
Chapter IX….. Setting The Record Straight
© Copyright 1993 - Frederick C. Kubicek

All rights reserved. This book is protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. This book may not be copied or reprinted for commercial gain or profit. The use of quotations or copying for personal or group study is permitted and encouraged.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved

Scriptures marked NEB are taken from the New English Bible.

Take note that the name satan and related names are not capitalized. We chose not to acknowledge Him, even to the point of violating grammatical rules.


It wasn't until after I had rededicated my life to Christ in 1980 that I truly appreciated the precious gift which God had given me in the form of my family. This book is dedicated to them and all that we have been through since that eventful day.

To the Most High God, who is the source of all true knowledge and to the inspiration, integrity, and irrefutability of His Word.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:08:47 AM
In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 KJV

For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him…

Colossians 1:16 KJV

But without faith it is impossible to please Him; for he that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV

The Bible makes no attempt to prove the existence of God; it assumes it. Our great nation was founded upon Christian principles and values, and its founding fathers were creationists. They knew the plain teaching of the scriptures: God through Jesus Christ created all things.

As a parent, I am responsible to teach this fundamental truth to my four children. As a pastor of a local church, I am responsible to teach my people the Word of God. As a Christian citizen, I am responsible to be informed.

Frederick Kubicek has done me and you a real service. Though a seasoned Bible teacher, I am a layman in the sciences. Much of what he has offered on the subject of evolution is both practical and applicable.

Evolution - Guilty As Charged is a brief, clear and powerful presentation from a Christ-centered, Bible based viewpoint. It will prove to be valuable reading for any concerned parent or pastor as well as classroom material for Christian schools and churches. Well documented and to the point, this volume is an added blessing to any library.

To the author we say thanks. He has offered to us his time, expertise, and most of all, his ability to communicate information that most of us would not otherwise know.

There is hope for America and the world. We must return to the bible and the God of the Bible. He is the Creator and we, the creation; He is the Potter, and we, the clay.

Kelly Varner, Th.B., D.D.

Senior Pastor, Praise Tabernacle

Richlands, North Carolina

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:10:55 AM

The rocks of the evolutionary theory have done more to cause believers, both young and old alike, to take their eyes off of Jesus Christ, the Rock of Our Salvation, than has any other single academic pursuit. This book has been written in order to bring into sharper focus the issues presented by both the Theory of Evolution and the Biblical account of Creation.

Anyone who has read any newspaper article, heard any radio program, watched any public television broadcast, or attended any university lecture which purports to deal with this topic has undoubtedly heard one or more of the following propositions set forth:

1) The evidence for the evolutionary theory of the origins of all species is both scientific and irrefutable.

2) There is no truly scientific evidence which would lead any impartial observer to conclude that the theory of special creation has any basis in fact.

3) Science is science, and religion is religion. They are like oil and water: they do not now, nor have they ever mixed well with each other.

4) Any discussion of creationism is, by definition, religious in nature, and should therefore not be allowed in any public school classroom.

5) The theory of evolution and the Genesis account of creation are compatible when viewed through the eyes of reason.

6) There is every reason to believe that God used the method of evolution to 'create' the world and the universe.

7) There is absolutely no relationship between the scientific theory of evolution and the philosophical position which has been labeled by some fundamentalist Christians as 'Secular Humanism.'

Much of the evidence which has been put forth in support of the foregoing positions is examined within the pages of this book. Of equal importance though, is the fact that numerous items which totally disprove each of the above mentioned positions are also presented and analyzed herein.

As this material is presented and investigated, it will become clear to the reader that many proponents of the theory of evolution are totally ignorant of the vast amount of scientific and historic facts which totally disprove their theory. It will also become obvious rather quickly, that a substantial number of evolution's most vocal advocates have been guilty of intentionally withholding from the public, the very evidence which disproves Darwin's theory. In addition, evidence will also be presented which proves that evolutionists have used fraudulent exhibits, eloquently fabricated stories, circular reasoning, and misleading statements in their unending attempts to remove all vestiges of Christianity from not only our public school classrooms, but from the very minds of America's children .

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:31:26 AM
Chapter I
More Than Genesis

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) What a simple, beautiful, and concise statement that is. I firmly believe that all people who call themselves Christians accept that opening verse of God's Word as being literally true. The difficulty seems to arise among some believers when they get to verse 2 and go on through chapter 2 verse 26.

Every article I have written up to this point has been based upon my understanding that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. (see Acts 4:25, Jer.1:12, II Pe.1:21, I Thes.2:13, Ps.18:30, Ps.12:6, II Tim.3:16, Ex.9:35, Prov.30:5, Ps.119:89, 152&160, I Pe.1:15, Isaiah 40:8, Ps.33:4, Ps.111:7, Ro.15:4, and Prov.30:6) They have also been based upon a literal interpretation of Biblical words and phrases within the context in which they appear. This book has been written upon these same two assumptions. By no means is it intended to be an all encompassing treatment of the subject of 'creation vs evolution.' It is however intended to address some of the major issues of this topic as presented by both the Bible and what many people maintain is the 'scientific' theory of evolution.

Some Christians, in an attempt to correlate the Scriptural account of creation with what they perceive to be irrefutable proof of the evolutionary theory, discount the first two chapters of Genesis as mere poetry. If in fact these chapters were poetic in nature, then it would not be necessary to apply the literal meaning to the word 'day' found therein. The problem with doing this is that the repetition, parallelism, and meter found in ALL Scriptural poetry is conspicuously absent. More importantly though, any attempt to correlate the two divergent concepts of the origin of man presented by Evolution and Genesis 1 & 2, requires that some very specific statements of Jesus Christ must also be dismissed as either poetic or fictional.

Jesus not only refers to the fact that God created the world, but He specifically states that man was " the beginning of creation..." (Mk.10:6; see also Matt.19:4). This verse does not require us to believe that man was created on the first day, rather that he was created within the confines of the seven day week of creation, and not 4 billion years after the process began. We notice similar vein, in Ro.1:20 (NEB), which clearly implies that someone has been around from the beginning to perceive God's handiwork when it says, "...His everlasting power and Deity have been visible ever since the world began." In order to bring the Biblical account of creation into line with evolution, it would be necessary to rewrite this verse to read, "...His everlasting power and Deity were not visible until about 4 billion years after the world began."

In I Cor.15:45 Paul gives further credence to a literal interpretation of Gen. 1 & 2 because he accepts as reality the fact that the first man was named 'Adam' and not 'Olduvai George-Homo Erectus'. (The later being a rather satirical name given to one of the fossil discoveries of the Leakey family as reported in Newsweek, February 13, 1967, p. 101.) Paul reaffirms his faith in the Genesis account of creation by stating that all the nations on earth camefrom Adam (through Noah), and not from the simultaneous development of the same species at several different locations throughout the world (Acts 17:26). He further states the fact that females did not evolve along with males, but were created by God as described in Gen.2:21-22 (see I Cor.11:9).

Do not be confused by those who claim that Genesis chapters 1 & 2 actually contain 2 separate conflicting accounts of creation. As is so often the case, any perceived conflict is only in the eye of the beholder. Many people choose to see a conflict where none in fact exists. Gen.1:1 - 2:3 provides us with one narration of the events which occurred during the 7 day week of creation. Gen.2:4 - 2:24 contains a separate account of the same period. By no means are these reports conflicting. As is so often the case, any perceived conflict is only in the eye of the beholder.

Just because one statement highlights, or expands upon some portion of an event does not mean that it conflicts with another description which emphasizes other areas. Genesis 1 and 2 do not contain conflicting accounts of creation, but complimentary ones. You need not rely upon my word alone for this either. In Matt.19:4 Jesus specifically refers to Gen.1:27 when He states that God created "male and female". He then refers to Gen. 2:24 as He continues His thoughts in Matt.19:5-6 by telling us that husbands and wives are "one flesh." Needless to say, by quoting from both chapters during His discussion of the single act of creation, it can easily be seen that Jesus saw no conflict.

The point however is still the same. More than just Genesis 1 and 2 must be dismissed if evolution is to be accepted, because the Genesis account of creation is referred to as fact throughout the Bible. Moses specifically restates it in Ex. 31:17 as does Isaiah in Isa. 45:12 & 18, Nehemiah in Neh.9:6, Jeremiah in Jer.27:5, Solomon in Prov.8:29, Zechariah in Zech.12:1, and David in Ps.148:3-5. Genesis 1:16 informs us that God "made the stars",and Amos 5:8 and Job 38:32 and 9:9 even list some of the specific constellations. Genesis 1:10 tells us that God gathered the waters together and called them "seas" and so does Ps.95:5, Ps.78:13, and Rev. 10:6. Genesis 1:24-25 says that the animals, both wild and domestic, were created by God, and Jeremiah 27:5 reaffirms this. As we saw earlier, Jesus left no room for doubt when He said that God created man, but then neither does Gen.5:5, Gen.6:7, and Deut.4:32.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:33:08 AM
Not only do we have those specific verses which say that God did the creating, but we can turn to Col. 1:17, Heb. 1:3, and Jer.33:25 and find that it is His power which sustains the universe and assures us of its continuing existence. (see also Ps.148:6) There are numerous other verses which speak of God's creation. As examples see: II Ki.19:15, I Chron.6:26, Ps.96:5, Ps.115:15, Ps.121:2, Ps.124:8, Ps.134:3, Ps. 46:6, Prov.8:26, Ps.24:1, Ps.119:90, Ps.136:6, Ps.104:4, Job 38:31, Isa.51:13 & 16, John 1:3, Acts 14:15, Acts 17:24, Mk.13:19, Isa.48:13, Col.1:16, Rev.4:11, Amos 4:13, Isa.40:28, Ps.89:11-12, Ps.148:5, Jer.27:5, €Isa.17:7, Prov.20:12, Ps.94:9, Ps.136:9, and Ps.33:6. Throughout Scripture God reminds us that He did the creating and that He did it exactly as He said He did.

Does that then mean that of necessity a literal 24 hour day is referred to in Gen. 1:5,8,13,19,23 & 31? I believe that that is exactly what the Scriptures do show us. These six verses clearly state that with each day there was an 'evening' and a 'morning'. The Hebrew word for morning used therein is boker which means "dawn, as the break of day" (Strong's Concordance #1242). According to Wigram's Hebrew Concordance, which lists every verse in which the Hebrew word is used in the original Hebrew text regardless of how it may have been translated into English, the word boker is used 182 other times in the Old Testament. Every time it is used it is referring to those hours in the early part of the day we customarily think of as 'morning'. How can I now say that the word boker means a literal morning 182 times, but something else the 6 times it is used in Genesis chapter 1?

The Hebrew word for 'evening' used in the above 6 verses of Genesis chapter 1 is erev and means "dusk - eventide" (Strong's Concordance #6153). The other 124 times it is used throughout the Old Testament it refers to those hours at the end of a 24 hour day we usually associated with 'evening.' Again, how can I now give a meaning to the word erev in Genesis 1 other than the literal 'evening' it implies the other 124 times it is used? If each day was in fact a thousand years and had a morning and evening then each of those times would have been about 500 years long. Needless to say, it would have gotten very very hot in the 'morning' and very very cold in the 'evening'. These are not exactly ideal growing conditions for plants which require photosynthesis to survive.

This does not put us in conflict with II Pe. 3:8 which says: "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day." In the context, we see that Peter was discussing a topic for which God had given no exact time reference, namely, the coming judgment of mankind. Then as now critics were saying, "Where is this coming He promised? Ever since our Fathers died everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." (II Pe.3:4) Peter was answering those skeptics by saying in effect, "Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen." To assume that Peter's statement in verse 8 deals with the fleeting reference made by those skeptics to creation is to violate every concept of both literary criticism and Biblical interpretation. It would make as much sense to say that the Feast of Tabernacles mentioned in Lev.22:24 was to last seven thousand years simply because it was to last for "seven days."

God has given us a specific time frame concerning the topic of creation, and it is found in the word "day" which is the correct interpretation of the Hebrew word yom (#3117 Wigram's Concordance and listed as yom #3117 in Strong's Concordance.) In Gen.1:5,8,13,19,23 & 31 it is used in direct conjunction with a numeral to indicate a specific day. Aan example of this is verse 5, "And there was evening and there was morning - the first day." Throughout the Old Testament the word yom is used 350 additional times in direct conjunction with an ordinal or a numeral. Every single time it is so used, it refers to a literal 24 hour period of time. Where is the justification for now saying that it means something other than that in Gen.1: 5,8,13,19,23 & 31?

Since we know that God usually speaks to us twice concerning major theological issues (Job 33:14 and Gen.41:32) we should expect to find a second reference to creation within the framework of a literal 24-hour period, if in fact that is what God intends for us to believe. Ex. 20:8-11 tells us that God established the Sabbath day for Israel because, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh..." (see also Ex. 31:7). Here God is speaking to Moses (Ex. 20:1) and He is making a direct correlation between man's 6 literal days (yom) of work and His six literal days (yom) of creation. He is directing man to rest one day (yom) just as He rested one day (yom). Furthermore, we are shown in Ex. 31:18 that God not only spoke these words to Moses, but wrote them Himself on the stone tablets. One additional point to consider while on this topic is that it cannot be said that God's rest on the 7th day lasted a thousand years, or as some would have us believe, is still going on, because as we have already seen in Col.1:17 and Heb.1:3, God is still sustaining the world and holding it together by His power.

There is still another theological concept which deals with the issue of time and which needs to be mentioned here. This is known as the 'Gap Theory', or the 'Restoration Theory.' According to this theory Gen. 1:1 is indeed correct. So is Genesis 1:2. However, its adherents believe that between 4 1/2 and 5 billion years separate the two verses.

Adherents to this position believe that the dinosaurs roamed the earth during this gap period. At some point, an overwhelming cataclysm occurred which may very well have been the result of the rebellion referred to in Ezekiel 28. As a result of this event, God's first creation became desolate. They interpret Gen. 1:2 to read, "Now the earth became formless and empty..." instead of "Now the earth was formless and empty..." In other words they would have us believe that Gen.1:2 through Gen.2:3 is actually the account of God's SECOND creation or recreation of the earth, with the first one having occurred almost 5 billion years earlier. To them, the fossils which the evolutionists refer to, both animal and human, are actually the remains of God's FIRST creation.

There are numerous conservative theologians who reject the theory of evolution, but who hold to this position for other reasons. However, there many other theologians who rely on the gap theory for no other reason than they are under the misguided impression that the evidence which supports the theory of evolution is so overwhelming that it must be true. In effect, they have attempted to reconcile their belief in the Genesis account of creation with the vidence for evolution by relying upon the gap theory.

This all sounds logical, but like the theory of evolution itself, the gap theory requires us to ignore numerous other verses of the Bible if we are going to believe it. It also causes us to give meanings to words which are contrary to those found throughout the rest of Scripture. For example, those who hold to the gap theory would translate the Hebrew word in Gen. 1:2 as 'became.' Now, this word is used 1500 times in the first five books of the Old Testament alone to denote the word 'was'. Whereas, the Hebrew word normally translated 'became' is haphak and that word is not found in Gen.1:2. Furthermore, the use of the Hebrew connective word vav at the beginning of Gen 1:2 emphasizes that the condition referred to therein follows immediately on the heels of the creating action mentioned in verse 1. ( Note also that the English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New American Standard, Moffat, and every other modern translation of the Bible correctly use the word was in Genesis 1:2, not the word became upon which the gap theory advocates insist.)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:34:54 AM
Further proof that no gap exists between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 is found in Gen.2:1-3 and Ex.20:11. Therein we are told that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. (emphasis added) Since the only place that the word 'heaven' can be found in Genesis chapter 1 is in verse 1, it must be assumed that the heavens and earth of verse 1 were part of the 6 day creation process referred to in the remainder of the chapter, not the product of some previous creation which occurred 5 billion years earlier.

Another point to consider is this. Evolutionists maintain that the fossil record proves that tens of thousands of species of animals existed before the first humans evolved. Most of these creatures died off before man appeared. As such, death existed long before Adam sinned. This of course puts the gap theory in direct conflict with Ro. 5:12 which says that death entered the world only after Adam sinned. Secondly, if the fossils we find today are in fact the remains of dead animals which lived on some previous earth, how could God have said that the earth He recreated in Gen. 1:9 was "very good?" Besides, when you consider the fact that evolution not only relies upon death and extinction in order to work, but also produces a great number of 'dead ends' in the process, it is illogical to assume that the God of the entire universe would use such an inefficient mechanism as evolution for his creating process. (I Cor.14:33) Finally, how could God have said in Heb.11:3 (NEB) "...that the visible came forth from the invisible" if the earth we see today was made from already existing elements (fossils)? Obviously, those fossils and the cataclysm which led to their formation must have occurred at some point after God's "very good" creation.

Keep in mind that there is no Scriptural evidence to support the claim that there was any earthly catastrophic consequence following after the events of Ezekiel 28 or Isaiah 14 as they are traditionally interpreted.) It is also equally incorrect to argue that there was some heavenly cataclysm associated with these events. Since only the earth is mentioned in verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1, there is no Scriptural evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that the heavens 'became' void. Therefore, according to the gap theory, these heavens must have existed during the 5 billion year gap without a sun, a moon, or stars, because these heavenly bodies were not created for the first time until the 4th day of the six day creation week.

We need to be aware that those who attempt to correlate the Biblical account of creation with the theory of evolution run into still another problem. Evolutionists will tell you that the solar system was the first entity to come into existence; whereas, Gen.1:14-19 informs us that this did not occur until the fourth day of creation. Evolutionists will tell you that the planets (including earth) were flung out from the sun - which is a star -after the solar system appears. On the other hand, Genesis tells us that the earth came before any of the stars. Evolutionists will tell you that marine invertebrates and even fish evolved before land plants appeared. However, Gen. 1: 9-12 reveals the fact that ALL land vegetation preceded the creation of marine life. Finally, the evolutionists will say that animals, amphibians, and sharks were established prior to the appearance of the forests, but Gen. 1:20-25 indicates that these were in fact created after the forests.

There is however an even greater obstacle which must be overcome by any believer who desires to correlate Genesis and Darwin by saying that God used the method of evolution to accomplish the act of creation. That problem is the presupposition which evolutionists such as Niles Eldredge, a curator with the American Museum of Natural History, maintains is the cornerstone of their theory. To Eldredge, evolution is science, and science requires that the notion of a creator be set aside. #1 At a gathering of the national Science Teacher's Association in Kansas City, Carl Sagan expressed his disdain for the perfectly valid, nonevolutionary academic pursuit known as scientific creationism by referring to it as nothing more than an "oxymoronic subject." #2

By no means though is Eldredge and Sagan the only evolutionist who makes this assumption. Those of us who watch TV have undoubtedly heard similar sentiments expressed on PBS. For example, William B. Provine said
The vast majority of people believe there is a design... in the universe (and) that it is somehow responsible for both the visible and moral order of the world. Modern biology has undermined this assumption. Even though it is often asserted that science is fully compatible with our Judeo/Christian ethical tradition, in fact it is not... (parenthesis added) #3

Perhaps also those of us who read magazines such as National Geographic have seen assertions such as the following from the pen of no less that its editor, Wilbur Garret:

There are as many different myths, such as the Judeo/Christian story of God creating first a man and then a women in the Garden of Eden, as there are ancient cultures. Scientists dismiss the myths... #4

Needless to say, it would appear that at least as far as the evolutionists are concerned, there is no way that the Genesis account of creation can be made to square with their brand of science. Isaac Asimov acknowledged that "Any real comparison between what the Bible says and what the (evolutionistic) astronomer thinks shows us instantly that the two have virtually nothing in common." (parenthesis added) #5 To put it bluntly, if the concept of evolution as it applies to the origin of the species is correct, then the Bible is wrong.

It has been said that Jesus Christ is one of three things. Either He is a liar, a lunatic, or He is who He says He is. (I believe that He is who He says He is.) The same type of thing can be said of creation. Either God created the world as He says He did or He didn't; in which case He would be a liar, and God is not a man that He should lie (Titus 1:2, Heb.6:18, I Sam.15:29, II Sam.7:28, Nu.23:19, and Isaiah 45:19).

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:36:39 AM

1) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business - A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982) pp 82 & 104

2) Associated Press, "Humans not smart..." Charleston, IL Times Courier, Vol. 206, Tuesday, April 6, 1993, p. A2.

3) William B. Provine, "The End of Ethics?" Hard Choices, 1980 pp. 2-3 (This magazine was a companion to PBS TV series "Hard Choices" broadcast on KCTS TV, Channel '9', University of Washington, 1980) Quote taken from Francis Shaeffer - The Christian Manifesto, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1981) p. 57

4) Wilbur E. Garrett, "Where Did We Come From", National Geographic Vol. 174, No. 4, (October 1988 ) p. 434

5) David Bender and Bruno Leons - Science and Religion: Opposing Viewpoints (St Paul ,MN: Green Haven Press, 1981), p. 51

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:55:08 AM
Chapter II
I'd Rather Not Talk About It

My quarrel is not with true science - but with a theory- (which in reality is little more than a hypothesis) that is passed off as scientific, when in fact it cannot even meet the first and foremost test of what it is that makes an idea scientific. Eldredge states in part that for an idea to be scientific, it must be an explanation of some phenomenon which is "testable solely by the criteria of our five senses."

# 1 I do not disagree with this statement. However, by its very nature the theory of evolution is totally unscientific because it is impossible to test any hypothesis which, by its own definition, requires 4 billion years to work. Yet evolutionists maintain that evolution is as scientific as the study of quantum mechanics.

#2 A prime example of such incongruous logic is furnished by Eldredge himself. In his book, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, he passes along the hypothesis that a possible explanation for the development of oxygen in the atmosphere at a level high enough to support complex life came about as the by-product of photosynthesis in algae over a period of several "billions" of years. He then states that "such a hypothesis is difficult to test.", but appears to accept it himself because he offers no alternative to it, and merely continues on with his discussion.

#3 Eldredge appears to accept as part of his "science" an idea which is not only difficult to test, but is downright impossible to test by the criteria of our five senses. But then Eldredge is certainly not alone in his inability to provide truly scientific explanations to such foundational questions. The best that Rick Gore, assistant editor of National Geographic could do was say ‚that "...certain bacterial members of the primordial slime invented the kind of photosynthesis that releases oxygen as a waste product." (emphasis added)

#4 The acceptance or willingness to accept as "scientific", an idea which violates the very rule of what it is that makes an idea scientific must raise some question in the reader's mind as to exactly how "scientific" evolution really is.

The simple fact that evolutionists call their study scientific does not make it so, even if they have been doing it for a hundred years and insist that it be treated as such in our children's textbooks. The fact that Eldredge states that "all reputable biological scientists see evolution as the only naturalistic scientific explanation of the order we see in the biological side of nature" should not defame the character of any biologist who accepts the Genesis account of creation, although the inference is clearly made.

#5 What then can we expect the psudoscience of evolution to tells us? Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University provided us with part of the answer to that question in a speech he gave before a group of evolutionists at Hobart College wherein he stated that, "...if it doesn't agree with your idea you don't talk about it."

#6 (By the way, Dr. Gould is not a creationist. In fact, he is coauthor along with Niles Eldredge of the currently popular "punctuated equilibria" theory which is used by evolutionists to explain why it is that the fossil record in reality does NOT show gradual evolution.) Now, while there are other things we can expect from evolutionists, let us first take a look at the points which do not appear in school textbooks and which definitely do not support the theory of evolution.

The fossil record is at the very heart of the theory of evolution, and it is there that I would like to begin this part of our study. Darwin believed that the different species developed one from another, either by direct descent or through a common ancestor. Complex life forms developed gradually over millions of years from simpler forms. This basic definition of what evolution is is still found in student texts such as Webster's New World Dictionary with Student Handbook 1978 edition which says that evolution is "the gradual changes that take place as something develops into its final form" ‚(emphasis added) However, Darwin himself noted, "Geology assuredly does not reveal such finely graduated organic chains... the explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:57:03 AM
#7 That record is no longer "imperfect" in that there are currently more than 100 million categorized fossils in the world's museums, and no graduated chain can be found.

#8 Evolutionists accuse those who believe in the Genesis account of creation of attacking the science of Geology and the science of Paleontology whenever they point out all the inconsistencies of the evolutionist's position. That ‚is a good smoke screen because it immediately puts the Christian on the defensive. This is unfortunate because it is not the science of Geology or the science of Paleontology which is under fire. After all, Geology and Paleontology are legitimate sciences, and I know of no one who wishes to attack the study of the Earth or fossils, when such studies follow established scientific principles. What is under attack is the type of sloppy, closed minded scholarship exhibited by some geologists and paleontologists who are confirmed evolutionists and who, using Eldredge's own words; "Spoke eloquently of the ravages of time, the erosion and metamorphism that destroyed the older vestiges of the fossil record," when in fact there was no evidence to suggest that any "older vestiges" ever existed in the first place.

# 9 Even Eldredge is forced to admit that many of his past colleagues were "...adventurous thinkers...(who used their) active imagination (to) invent novel explanations of how evolution takes place." (parenthesis & emphasis added)

# 10 These men made every effort to explain something which never existed; that is, the evidence of the gradual evolution of the species which Darwin assumed was there. Their preconceived notion that the fossil record had to eventually yield something they "knew" was there caused them to assure our parents, us; and if you will check your child's science book you will most likely find that they are still assuring them that it is a "scientific fact" that we slowly evolved from single-celled life forms. In fact, that is not what the fossil record shows at all. Such assertions were not scientific when they were made. In reality, they were nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who made them.

Every single major invertebrate form of life is found in the rock strata known as "Cambrian", and yet not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil animal has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rock. The sudden appearance of all those life forms in Cambrian rock is even acknowledged by Eldredge to be, "perhaps the greatest of all events in life's history," yet its explanation is, according to him, "a mystery" (emphasis added)

# 11 The very foundation of organic evolution is categorized as a mystery because no evidence exists to fit the evolutionist's preconceived theory of evolution.

In a feeble attempt to explain this mystery, modern evolutionists, like their predecessors also rely upon their active imaginations. Time magazine science writer J. Madeleine Nash admitted that when trying to explain the abrupt appearance of Cambrian fossils "… scientists delicately slide across data this ice, suggesting scenarios that are based on intuition rather than solid evidence."

#11a To me however, the astounding thing is that evolutionists refer to the sudden appearance of every major invertebrate form of life as "evolutionary" when not one shred of fossil evidence exists to suggest (let alone prove) that any type of gradual development took place from the less complex to the more complex multicellular forms of life which are indisputably present in the Cambrian rock formation. In an attempt to explain the lack of pre- Cambrian multicellular fossils Eldredge says, "...the intermediates had to have been soft bodied, and thus extremely unlikely to become fossilized."

# 12 That sounds logical, and were it not for some other seldom discussed points, many of us would believe it.

But that explanation ignores the fact that fossils of worms and caterpillars have been found by L.S.B. Leakey in other strata;

# 13 Hair, feathers, and stomach contents along with other soft body tissues have been found in the fossil beds of central Germany.

# 14 Just as interestingly though, is the fact that such an explanation ignores the fossils of seven foot long jellyfish, worms, and sponges found in the Cambrian rock itself, and you can't get much more soft-bodied than that. But the most intriguing thing of all is that fossils of flowering plants and fish have also been found in Cambrian rock, and they weren't supposed to have evolved at the time that Cambrian rock was being formed.

# 15 At this point in our study however, the most important thing to remember is that there is no evidence in any rock strata of the gradualness Darwin demanded, and this fact is not contained in our children's high school textbooks.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 05:59:01 AM
Student textbooks still contain statements such as this one by William H. Matthews III, "Fossils provide one of the strongest lines of evidence to support the theory of organic evolution."

#16 Note also this one by Twenhofel and Shriek, "No line of evidence more forcefully and clearly supports the fundamental principle of evolution - descent with accumulative modification - than that furnished by the fossils."

# 17 Even more detailed reference books, (such as major encyclopedias) tell us that fossils present "evidence to support the theory of evolution" which is itself defined as a "process of gradual change" that explains how "organisms gradually developed specialized characteristics that helped them adapt to their environment."

# 18 All of these statements remember, are made in spite of the fact that at the very first level in which multicellular fossils are found, (Cambrian rock) there is absolutely no evidence of "accumulative modification." It is also clear from other observations that while "transitions" at the subspecies level are observable, they are only inferable at the species level and totally absent between higher categories.

# 19 This absence of higher life form transitions was first mentioned by Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkley in 1940. He specifically noted that "... transitions between higher categories are missing."

# 20 In fact, this lack of transitions is so obvious that Professor George Gaylord Simpson, a vertebrate paleontologist at Harvard University, stated that "... higher transitions are not recorded because they did not exist.."

# 21 Dr. Austin Clark, a biologist with the Smithsonian Institute, stated that "since we have not the slightest evidence among the living or fossil animals of any integrating types following between major groups it is a fair supposition that there never have been, any such integrating types."

# 22 It would seem that this complete absence of transition fossils has been noted everywhere except in our children's textbooks.

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould states that the "fossil record offered no support for gradual change ... new species ALMOST ALWAYS APPEARED SUDDENLY in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in the older rock of the same region." (emphasis added)

# 23 Along the same line Eldredge makes an interesting observation concerning life cycle changes which the fossil record does show. "Such changes have not been graceful. Life has been occasionally violently disputed by major episodes of extinction that appears to have eliminated 75% or more of ALL species in some cases." (emphasis added)

# 24 The preceding five quotes were not taken from creationists, but from confirmed evolutionists, and those words tell us that the 125 years of graduated evolutionary teaching that had been, and still is being taught as "scientific fact", is simply not true. In fact, Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, has gone so far as to state that "... statements about the ancestry (of species) are not applicable in the fossil record... (but) are made up stories… not part of science." (parenthesis and emphasis added)

# 25 Before we proceed any further I would like to highlight what has just been said because the consequences of these rather surprising admissions by members of the evolutionary community are indeed astounding. I am sure that we have all heard the expression "evolutionary chain" or "missing link." Now by missing link I am not referring to its more limited definition; ie. applying it only to man's supposed ancestors, but to its more general meaning as it applies to the development of every species within the animal kingdom. I am however going to limit this part of our discussion to the "higher categories" of scientific classification known as "family" as opposed to the final level of classification known as "species."

Imagine for a moment that one representative from each extinct and living family of animals is standing before you holding a link of steel chain in its hand (or paw or foot - whichever you prefer). Each one of these ten thousand or so specimens would then take its assigned place in the so called evolutionary chain of development and begin looking around for that "ancestor" with whom it could join its link. No doubt what you would notice is that all ten thousand specimens were standing there with a blank expression on their faces. This of course results from the fact that not one of them could find anyone, either from among the living, or the extinct which directly proceeded them in this supposed chain. There is no one with whom they could link up. You see, there is not merely one "missing link", but ten thousand of them, and that is at the family level alone. If we go down to the species level of classification, the number of missing links increases by the tens of thousands because as we have just seen, even the evolutionists now admit that there is absolutely no evidence in the fossil record of graduated transitional forms.

The question now is, "Will the evolutionists graciously accept the account of creation as set forth in Genesis?" He cannot!!! Remember, Eldredge stated at the outset that a purely evolutionistic scientist must of necessity deny the existence of a creator god. The evolutionist's absolute prejudice against a creator is best summoned up in the words of D.M.S. Watson, a frequent commentator on the BBC and himself an evolutionist. He stated that "evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur, or can be proven logically by coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

# 26 Such an attitude therefore causes the evolutionists to totally dismiss even the evidence of the very fossils they must of necessity depend upon, when those fossils do not line up with their preconceived notions that life gradually appeared over a cycle of millions of years.

Referring to the catastrophic changes mentioned earlier, Eldredge states: "... such events ... took upwards of a million years to accomplish. But once again, such long periods show up as dramatically sudden turnovers if the rock record is taken literally."

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:01:46 AM
# 27 How incredible! For decades we were told that the fossil record is at the very heart of evolutionistic evidence. Now we are told that we shouldn't take it literally in this case because such a literal interpretation does not fit their preconceived notion of time which we were at one time assured the rock record supported. In one breath Eldredge chided his past colleague because they didn't take the fossil record literally and accept what any literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 & 2 would have told them, ie. no gradual changes. In the next breath he tells us not to take the rock record literally because if we do we won't end up with as many millions of years as the evolutionist needs in order for his theory to have even the slightest chance of working out.

Why would Eldredge say such things? Simple, his theory of punctuated equilibria uses a literal interpretation of the fossil record to show no gradual changes, but like any other evolutionist, he still needs millions of years to increase the statistical possibilities that other portions of his theory will work out. He must therefore deny the literal interpretation of the rock record when such an interpretation would knock several million years off of his time clock.

Since the rock record does not show the gradual changes formerly insisted upon by evolutionists, the inevitable has finally happened. As Eldredge and Gould now maintain "... the fossil record ... suggests to some of us that some of the specific ideas that Darwin and many of his successors right up to the present day, had on how life evolves, may be at least partially wrong."

# 28 They have, as inconspicuously as possible, thrown out the first major tenet of Darwin's theory, ie. the gradual evolution over long periods of time of every species. They, and an apparent majority of the nation's leading biological evolutionists who attended a conference in October 1980 at the Field Museum of Natural history in Chicago, now accept what is known as "punctuated equilibria."

Translated into common English this means that the species are, were, and will most likely remain, separated from each other by a division of some type.

# 29 In short, no gradual changes from one species to another. While there may be gradual changes WITHIN species, such as men of the 20th century being taller than men of the 15th century, there had to be sudden, numerous, major organic changes within a short span of time to explain the sudden appearance of different species. They say it happened over thousands of years, as opposed to the previously alleged "fact" that it took millions of years, but as far as the fossil record is concerned, it could just as easily have happened over one generation - but they will not admit that.

However, as was the case with Darwin's gradualism, there is absolutely no fossil evidence to prove the punctuated equilibria hypothesis (still no fossilized transitions). In an attempt to explain this problem, evolutionists who hold to this notion maintain that these changes affected relatively few animals. In short, greater changes affecting fewer animals over a shorter period of time meant that fewer specimens were available to even have a chance to become fossilized. In any case, the sudden changes that they now assure us happened, fly directly in the face of Charles Darwin's own statement which was, "... if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (emphasis added)

# 30 Eldredge and Gould are on the leading edge of the currently popular evolutionary thought process which maintains that that is exactly what happened, but they still refuse to accept what Darwin himself said would be the only possible consequence of such a finding; namely, " theory would absolutely break down." If that isn't bad enough, look at what they offer up as a "scientific" replacement for Darwin's gradualism - punctuated equilibria. A hypothesis which even Eldredge admits "...isn't particularly neat, elegant, all-embracing, completely testable, or even as yet totally thought through."

# 31 Nevertheless, we are supposed to accept this nontestable idea as scientific, even though it violates the very rule which Eldredge himself said must be complied with before an idea can be considered scientific.

This is not the end of the problems which the fossil record presents to the evolutionist. Among others would be fossilized trees - some right side up and some upside down - penetrating several different strata of rock. Obviously, this is something which could not have happened unless both the tree and the different strata were laid down at the same time.

# 32 There are also numerous areas, such as the Cumberland Bone Cave in Maryland, where fossils of mammals, birds, and reptiles from different types of climates have been found mixed together. There are also fossil beds so huge that nothing short of some world wide cataclysm could possibly explain. Examples of these would be the Karron formation in South Africa, containing an estimated 800 billion vertebrate skeletons, and the hippopotamus beds of Sicily which are extensive enough that they have been mined commercially for charcoal. The thousands of frozen mammoths found in Siberia should also be included in this group.

The final problem presented by the fossil record which I will mention, deals with where the fossils themselves are located. According to traditional evolutionistic thought, the oldest fossils are the least complex and should be found in the lowest rock strata while the newer, more complex fossils will appear only in the upper strata. (While this is generally found to be true, evolutionists ignore the fact that this could just as well be explained by the Biblical great flood. In such a situation the more able-bodied complex life forms would have sought higher ground and would be the last to die, and therefore, the last to have become buried under the sediment produced by the flood. Note also that the sediment itself would have been deposited in layers as the flood waters receded from the earth.) What are normally not discussed in high school textbooks are the glaring exceptions to the evolutionist's traditional position.

In fact, these exceptions are so numerous that some geologists who are themselves strongly committed to the evolutionists overall viewpoint, now admit that the 'simple to complex' premise held by many of their colleagues is simply not supported by the fossil record. They point out that while it is indeed true that the fossil remains of 'simple' organisms are found in lower rock strata and the fossil remains of 'complex' animals are found in higher strata, this fact alone does not establish an evolutionary chain. David M. Raup of the University of Chicago correctly notes that within the fossil record "there is no recognizable trend toward increased complexity that is clear enough to use for dating purposes... Even where the fossil record of a coherent group of organisms can be traced ... increasing complexity through time is elusive at best." (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:04:40 AM
# 33 Besides, to compare the 'complexity' of an insect with the 'simplicity' of a starfish is to compare apples to oranges.

Concerning the location of simple fossils vis-a-vis more complex ones, it should also be noted that in the mountainous regions of every continent, numerous examples can be found where the less complex fossils are found on top of the more complex ones.

# 34 Geologists have a name for formations such as these where fossils appear to be out of sequence, they call them "overthrusts." In an overthrust the bottom layer of rock is said to have slid over on top of the neighboring newer strata. Evolutionists will tell you that this is exactly what happened with the Lewis Overthrust in Montana, assuming that is, that they mention it at all.

Even if they do mention it, what they probably will not point out to you is that the Lewis overthrust is over six miles wide in places and ranges in length from 135 to 350 miles. Now that is one heck of a piece of rock to move by slow natural means, but that is what they want us to believe. What's more though is that they want us to believe that it moved more than 30 miles to its present location, and did so without leaving sufficient signs to demonstrate such a massive shift of the earth's surface. While it is true that the area may indeed be described as geologically disturbed, the disturbances noted cannot account for a relocation of this magnitude. Evolutionists would also ask us to believe that the Matterhorn mountain in the Swiss Alps moved at least 20 miles to its present location, and that Mythen Peak, which has what is estimated as 200 million year old rock on top of 60 million year old rock, moved from Africa to Switzerland.

# 35 This brings us to another example of the incongruous thinking which is used by the evolutionist. One of the reasons some evolutionists reject any concept of a creator is because such a concept brings into play a god who must, according to his reasoning, have acted "using laws no longer in operation," and such a possibility is "utterly beyond the purview of science."

# 36 If we assume that this statement represents the overall point of view held by members of the evolutionistic community, it reveals three interesting things about their mind set. First, evolutionists have created a "god" out of their "science" in that they have defined the limits within which anything can, has, or will operate.

# 37 Secondly, they believe that God does not act today as He did at the creation. This belief causes them to not only deny the first two chapters of Genesis, but the crossing of the Red Sea as described in Ex.14:21-22, Jesus' walking on the water as related in Matt.14:25, and any number of totally miraculous healings which have happened in the last few years alone, including the creation of new eye balls in previously empty sockets. Thirdly, and most importantly for purposes of this discussion, evolutionists place total confidence in a concept known as "uniformitarianism." This concept assumes that the forces of nature acting today are sufficient to account for all past geological changes.

Charles Lyell, the father of modern evolutionistic geology, developed this concept by expanding upon the ideas of his predecessor, James Hutton. He was strongly opposed to any explanation of a geological event which even suggested catastrophe. To quote Lyell, ".. no causes whatever have from the earliest time ... to the present, ever acted, but those now acting; and they have never acted with different degrees of energy from that which they now exert." (emphasis added)

# 38 Traditionally, evolutionists have taken the position that Lyell "dealt catastrophism the death blow."

# 39 Therefore, if any evolutionist tells you that he now accepts certain types of catastrophic changes, he is again eliminating one of the major suppositions that made up the foundations of his theory. Not only that, but in the process he has actually created a major intellectual dilemma for himself.

Eldredge points out that the geologic column (which evolutionists used to establish the earth's age) was worked out before Darwin published his Origin of the Species. This of course, is quite true. However, the idea of a geologic column does not in and of itself contain any assumption about the age of the earth, only the composition of its crust. The age of the earth which Darwin relied upon in his book was in fact based totally upon the works of Charles Lyell and James Hutton. As we have already seen, both of these men absolutely rejected catastrophic occurrences as viable explanations for the geologic formations we see around us today.

# 40 As such, Darwin reasoned that any fossil found in a rock formation Lyell estimated to be half a billion years old must itself be half a billion years old. Were it not for the anti-catastrophic viewpoint held by Lyell and Hutton, Darwin would have had no basis for assuming that any formation was anywhere near as old as half a billion years.

Since Lyell's calculations were not based upon Darwin's theory, what then, was his anti-catastrophic theory of uniformitarianism based upon? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !! Nothing that is except his reasoning that since he had never seen a world wide deluge, none had ever occurred. We can now begin to see the intellectual problem facing the evolutionists. If Lyell was wrong, then there was no valid reason for Darwin to have assumed that his fossil discoveries were ancient because Darwin's concept of the age of the earth was based solely upon Lyell's now discredited theory. At this point the problem which the evolutionists have created for themselves comes into full focus. What evolutionists must now maintain is a position which goes something like this. "Both Lyell and Darwin were correct in all their ultimate conclusions, but they were right for all the wrong reasons." Putting it another way, they could say, "Both Darwin and Lyell arrived at the correct destination, but they took all the wrong roads to get there." Not only are we expected to accept this type of evolutionistic thought process as scientific, but they want us to do so in spite of the fact that two of their foundational premises have been abandoned by their most prominent spokesmen.

Eldredge states that "geologists long ago abandoned ...(the idea)... that all changes in earth history were the product of infinitesimally minute changes gradually accumulating through time." (emphasis & parenthesis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:09:10 AM
# 41 His contention that the anti-catastrophic portions of Lyell's theory were abandoned by geologists long ago is itself contradicted by the American Geological Society which stated in 1958 that:

(geologists) learned that the features of the earth's surface could be adequately accounted for by cumulative processes, operating not only in the past, but in the visible present. The valleys of the earth, they found were not torn open by violent paroxysms of the planet's surface, but were slowly excavated by running water over immense periods of time… (emphasis & parenthesis added)

# 42 Even as late as 1985 the World Book Encyclopedia was informing its readers that "Geologists base their explanations of rock clues on their observations of the earth today. ... Geologists also assume that the earth has developed in the past in the same way as it is developing now. This idea ... first proposed by James Hutton ... is now called the principal of uniformitarianism."

# 43 I therefore submit, that if in fact this aspect of Lyell's uniformitarianism theory has been abandoned by some modern evolutionists, it was not done so long ago, but only recently. Even then it was abandoned not because it is clearly wrong, but because they feel that they no longer need it.

You see, they have discovered something else which seems to give them the billions of years they need for their theory. These new techniques appear to have a more scientific basis than did Lyell's hypothesis. Had it not been for the radio isotope dating methods developed in the late 1950's and early 60's, evolutionists would still be clinging tenaciously to Lyell's anti-catastrophic views, even though they had no basis in fact when Lyell developed them. Recognizing the fact that Lyell's position was totally baseless, modern evolutionists have in effect acknowledged that Lyell was wrong.

We are now faced with a situation which is similar to that which we saw in the case of Darwin's gradualism. First of all, today's crop of evolutionists are again telling us that something which we had been assured was as much a scientific fact as gravity, is not a fact at all. In reality, 'anti-catastrophic geologic uniformitarianism' is nothing more than another now thoroughly discredited evolutionistic fairy tale. Secondly, and perhaps most disturbing to me is the fact that "...the nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exists in popular treatments of geology, some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks. It is even still taught in secondary school classrooms."

# 44 Again, our school children are being exposed to evolutionary myth, and then being assured that it is a scientific fact. And this is in spite of the fact that Lyell's anti-catastrophic viewpoint was not the result of a simple oversight on his behalf. In order for Lyell to arrive at his position he had to actually ignore the very evidence which should have told him he was wrong. According to at least one noted evolutionist, Lyell and other 19th century geologists had to "ignore or give very secondary importance ..." to the many examples of geologic catastrophism which they themselves discovered.

# 45 It should be noted concerning the inter-relationships which existed between Lyell's version of geology and Darwin's version of biology that Eldredge maintains that there isn't any: "Geologists on the whole don't care a fig about evolution - haven't in the past, and as far as I can tell still don't care much about it today."

# 46 I believe that Eldredge has made this statement in an attempt to prove that both geologists and biologists scientifically arrived at the same conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, and that they did so independently of each other.

However, the noted British geologist Sir Archibald Geike clearly contradicts this assertion when he stated in 1910 that "The publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species ... produced an extraordinary revolution in geological opinion. The older schools of thought rapidly died out and evolution became the recognized creed of geologists all over the world."

# 47 Even today "fossils help geologists figure out the ages of rock strata..."

# 48 Enough has been said for now about the age of the rocks and the fossils found in them. I will discuss that topic in greater detail a little later on.

As we return to the concept of uniformitarianism, allow me to ask several questions. What forces of nature today are moving individual mountains from Africa to Switzerland? What forces of nature are producing fossils of the type discovered by Leakey (or any type for that matter)? When you find out please tell his son, for in regards to the soft bodied fossils he discovered prior to his death, he stated; "How did these incredible fossils occur? We simply do not know?"

# 49 The incongruity of the evolutionist's thought process becomes more apparent.

Evolutionists first make the assumption that any god who created the universe must not be working today. They then state that the forces of nature at work today are sufficient to explain everything that happened in the past. Then they turn around and say that they do not know what forces of nature created the very fossils they have to depend upon as they try to prove their theory. They also ignore the overwhelming exceptions to the arbitrary rules they themselves have set up when it is pointed out to them that their rules violate the rules of true science. Needless to say, not much is said in high school textbooks about all the exceptions we have just seen. In fact, these books usually leave the impression that everything in nature follows the evolutionist's pattern.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:12:38 AM
Here are a few other questions which need to be asked. What forces of nature at work today produced the Decean Plateau of India which is composed of over a million square miles of lava sometimes thousands of feet thick? What forces of nature at work today explain how the quarter million square mile Utah-Arizona plateau apparently rose from below sea level to a mile above sea level, as many evolutionistic geologists say it did, without disturbing the relatively even distribution of marine fossils found in the strata which comprises this plateau? What forces of nature at work today explain islands which contain fossilized land animals submerged six thousand feet below the surface of the ocean?

Dr. K.K. Landes, Chairman of the Department of Geology at the University of Michigan asked this question of his fellow geologists, "Can we, as seekers after the truth, shut our eyes any longer to the fact that large areas of sea floor have sunk vertical distances measured in miles?"

# 50 I submit that open-minded scientists who carefully follow their own rules of hypothesis and testing, and who are open to change, are not ignoring such problems. However, most evolutionists appear to have the habit of doing exactly what Stephen Gould said they do; namely, if it doesn't fit their theory, they simply do not talk about it.

But Dr. Gould's candid statement which was quoted near the beginning of this chapter is not the only one we have to substantiate the charge that evolutionists have a habit of ignoring the facts which are overwhelmingly in conflict with their theory. Dr. Robert Jastrow, Director of NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies noted that:

Astronomers are curiously upset by... proof that the universe had a beginning. Their reactions provide an interesting ‚ demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective mind -when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in their profession.... There is a kind of religion in science; a faith that every event can be explained as the product of some previous event... This conviction is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid... the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications he would be traumatized. As usual, when the mind is faced with trauma, it reacts by ignoring the implications. (emphasis added)

# 51 However, we should not be so niave as to believe that all this absent mindedness is trauma induced. Pierre Paul Grasse', past President of the French Acadamie des Science, and himself an evolutionist, candidly noted that:

The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposefully overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. (emphasis added).

# 52 Other evolutionists have been known to ignore the evidence facing them for reasons which are decidedly less lofty than philosophical ones. Again, you need not take my word alone in order to substantiate this point. While giving the 1980 Assembly Week address at the University of Melbourne, Professor Whitten, a member of the Genetics Department who, even though holding to the evolutionists position, pointed out that:

Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly deprived of continuing research grants.

# 53 (emphasis added) By no means could the prominent biologist S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at the University of Umea in Sweden, be considered a creationist. Yet, he too, has observed the fact that Darwinian evolutionists regularly ignore the facts which disprove their theory. As he points out, this is not merely a recent phenomena. He states:

...the Darwinian theory of natural selection whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false. ...(T)here are now considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why is it not abandoned? I think the answer to this question is that current evolutionists following Darwin's example - they refuse to accept falsifying evidence. (emphasis added)

# 54 It would appear that the evolutionist's mind is a perfect example of the principle that if we hold unsound presuppositions with sufficient tenacity, facts will make no difference at all.

Many evolutionists hold on to the uniformitarianism theory because it is one of the few concepts which gives them the billions of years they need to work with. However, if consistently applied, it presents innumerably more problems to them than it apparently solves. For example, sediment formed by microscopic marine organisms and dust blown or washed into the ocean should have blanketed the sea floor to a uniform depth of at least twelve miles, if in fact the earth is even half as old as evolutionists maintain. Yet none is found in the center of the Atlantic and only a 1/2 mile thick veneer is found along the continental shelf.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:15:14 AM
# 55 Furthermore, assuming that salt is being added to the ocean today at a rate no greater than it has in the past, and even assuming that there was no salt in the oceans at their inception, the salinity of the oceans demands a date for their creation of not more than 200,000 years ago. And that is at least 3 billion years younger than, any evolutionist can accept.

Finally, we also know from observation and testing that iron meteorites strike the earth at a given rate per year. If in fact the geologic formations on the earth were laid down over a period of several billion years, then it would be easy to find tons of iron meteorites in each layer of sediment. Whereas, if these layers were set down over a very short period (say one year or less), such as would have been the case in the Biblical flood, then few, if any, would be found in the middle or lower layers. The fact that NO iron meteorites have been found in the so called ancient geologic layers is merely one more traumatic fact which many evolutionists simply forget to mention in their writings.

# 56 The foregoing points are all ignored, glossed over, minimized as to their import, or given explanations which are totally untestable and then passed off as factual when they are, many times, in direct conflict with the "scientific" facts the evolutionists wanted us to believe only a few short years ago. Yet there are even greater examples of the evolutionist's ignoring the very laws of true science to which they supposedly subscribe. Some of them can be shown as we examine their concept of how our solar system developed.


1) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business - A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982) pp 82

2) ibid p. 82

3) ibid p. 22

4) Rick George "Extinctions" National Geographic, Vol. 175 p. (October 1989) 676,

5) Eldredge, op cit. p. 22

6) Dr. D. James Kennedy - The Collapse of Evolution, (Ft Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1981) p. 6

7) Thomas F. Heinze - Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 180) pp. 22-23

8 ) Kennedy, op cit. p. 3

9) Eldrdge, op cit. p. 46

10) Niles Eldredge - Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the theory of Punctuated Equilibria (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1985), p. 93

11) Eldredge - Monkey Business…. pp. 46-47

12) J. Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded" Time, Vol.146 # 23 (December 4, 1995) p. 73

13) Eldredge - Monkey Business… p. 130

14) Louis G. Leakey, "Adventures in Search of Man", National Geographic (January 1963) p. 146,

15) Norman D. Newell, "Fifty Years at Paleontology", Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 33 (May 1959), p.488-499

16) Dr. Walter T. Brown Jr., Radio Interview, Point of View, USA Radio Network - October 3, 1988

17) Kennedy, op cit. p. 2

18 ) Kennedy, op cit. p. 2

19) World Book Encyclopedia 1985 ed. Vol. 7, p. 367 and Vol. 6, p. 330

20) Heinze, op cit. p. 26

21) Kennedy, op cit. p. 3

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:18:02 AM
22) George Gaylord Simpson - The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953 ) p. 231

23) Kennedy, op cit. p. 4

24) ibid p. 5

25) Eldredge - Time Frames . p. 48

26) Tom Bothell, "Agnostic Evolutionists", Harpers, Vol 270 February 1985) p. 49

27) Douglas Dewar and L. M. Davies - Science and the BBC: The Nineteenth Century and After (April 1954), p. 167

28 ) Eldredge - Monkey Business p. 48

29) ibid pp. 47-48

30) Kennedy, op cit. pp. 4-5

31) Heinze, op cit. p. 86

32) Eldredge - Times Frames p. 179

33) John C. Witcomb & Henry M. Morris - The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962) p. 182

34) David M. Raupp, "Geology and Creationism", The Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History Vol. 54, (March 1983) , p. 21

35) M King Hulbert, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting" The Bulletin of the Geological Society of America Vol 70 ( Feb. 1959), pp. 115-122

36) Heinze, op cit. p. 32

37) Eldredge - Monkey Business p. 82

38 ) Harold Westphal - The Historian and the Believer, Vol 2, p. 280

39) Ruth Moore - The Earth We Live On p. 170

40) Francis A. Shaeffer -Genesis In Time and Space (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1972) p.138 Early Man, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) p. 19

41) Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol 17, p. 159 and Vol. 11, p. 643 (1910); also World Book Encyclopedia, (1985 Ed.) Vol 6, p. 16d

42) Eldredge - Monkey Business p. 96

43) The World We Live In (New York: Time-Life, 1958 ), Editor: Lincoln Barnett, p. 42.

44) World Book Encyclopedia, (1985 Ed.) Vol 6, p. 16d

45) Raup, op cit. p. 21

46) ibid p. 21

47) Eldredge - Monkey Business, p. 111

48 ) Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol. 11, p. 644 (1910)

49) World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 ed Vol. 6, p. 16d

50) Louis B. Leakey, op. cit. National Geographic p. 49

51) Witcomb & Morris, op cit. p. 142

52) Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1978, Part VI, pp. 1 & 6; also David Bender and Bruno Leons - Science and Religion: Opposing Viewpoints (St Paul ,MN: Green Haven Press, 1981), p. 50

53) Pierre-Paul Grasse' - Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977) p.8, , also Dr. Andrew Snelling, editor - The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990) p. 27,

54) Professor Whitten, Assembly Week Address, University of Melbourne, 1980, see also Snelling, op. cit. p.3

55) S. Lovtrup - Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 352

56) Henize, op cit. p. 40

57) Brown, op cit

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:32:22 AM
Chapter III
Real Science Has Its Say

According to one of the more prominent, currently acceptable theories, the planets in our solar system were spun-off from the sun. Each planet was flung into space where it cooled and now revolves around the sun. However, if this was true, why do the planets rotate around their axis faster than the sun rotates around its own - in violation of the rules governing centrifugal force? Why do Uranus and Venus rotate on their axis in a direction opposite to that of the other seven planets if they were supposedly spun off from the same sun? Why do planets with moons, except the Earth, rotate faster than their moons? Why do eleven of the thirty two moons revolve around their planets in a direction opposite to that in which the planets revolve around the sun? Finally, if the earth was formed from the sun, which is 99% hydrogen, how did its heavy elements such as iron and nickel develop? The theory of neutron capture does not appear to be a satisfactory explanation because it does not adequately account for the problem of overcoming the instability of those elements with an atomic mass number of 5 or 8. You see, you cannot build on these unstable elements unless other elements with higher numbers are already present. In effect, they are the weak link in the chain.

It must be pointed out however that in addition to all of the above inconsistencies, there is one other law of true science which the entire theory of evolution absolutely and unequivocally violates. That is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, more commonly referred to as 'entropy.' This law states in effect that all natural processes lead to an increase in the randomness of the system being considered . Things left to themselves to be operated on by chance do not get more and more organized, but rather more and more disorganized. It doesn't say first things get more complicated and then eventually less so, it says 'more and more disorganized.'

By definition, evolution is an idea which demands two things: first, chance happenings, and second, a progression from the simple to the complex. That puts evolution in direct conflict with one of the most accepted of all the laws of true science. The only defense to this objection given by evolutionists is a smoke screen which goes something like this. What could be more natural than the growth of a human being from the time that the egg is fertilized until death? It grows - becoming more complicated, and then it gets old - less complicated, and dies, thereby succumbing to the law of entropy.

They use this false example to allow for the intervening stage of complexity. This however is quite misleading because entropy operates only on a system which is left to itself to be operated on by chance. Whereas, the growth of a human being from embryo to adulthood is not controlled by random chance, but by the programmed chromosomes we received from our parents. But we should not be surprised by misleading examples because, as we will see a little later on in this study, outright hoaxes as well as misleading statements have played an important part in the development of the theory of evolution.

Not only does Darwinian evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics, but what has been long hailed by evolutionists themselves as the best example of evolution actually violates the very theory it is supposed to prove. I am referring to the famous horse example. Eldredge states, "...the fossil record is full of examples of progressive changes (from ancestor into descendant.) Horses to take but one, got larger..."

# 1 The 1972 edition of encyclopedia Britannica states that the "horse family has the most complete fossil record of any group of mammals." (see also World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 ed. vol. 9, p. 326) Why there are not also 'complete' records of the evolution of all those mammals which are far more numerous than horses is another question which the evolutionists seem to ignore, but that is not the issue I wish to discuss here, so I will merely allow you to ponder that one for yourself.

According to the horse theory, our modern horse evolved gradually from the now extinct Eohippus, a 28 inch tall, multi-toed mammal. But here is the problem with that theory. Evolution says we go from the less complex to the more complex, from the weak to the strong. But this prime example of the evolutionary theory fails to comply with its own premise in at least three major areas. First, a more complex 4-toed mammal (3 toes on the hind quarter) 'evolved' into a less complex one toed horse. Secondly, a strong, arch-backed Eohippus 'evolved' into the much weaker straight backed or sway- backed horse. Thirdly, the Eohippus had more teeth than the modern horse. Each of these observations provide a clear example of the more complex 'evolving' into the less complex, and that is not evolution, but deterioration.

Furthermore, the charts and drawings used to illustrate this supposed change are unfair in that they generally show the smallest known Eohippus, about 27 inches high, alongside the largest modern horse. They do not show us that there were several species of Eohippus which were about the size of a Shetland pony, and at least one modern breed of horse that is only 29 inches tall. This distortion of what the fossil record actually does reveal concerning the horse family is so outrageous, that even Heribert Nilsson, a prominent European evolutionists has conceded that "(t)he family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks.

# 2 (parenthesis and emphasis added) Finally, the evolutionists who write the textbooks and encyclopedia articles which almost always cite the horse example as proof for their theory somehow forget to acknowledge the fact that noted evolutionists such as David M. Raup, formerly of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and currently Chair of the Geophysical Sciences Department at the University of Chicago, have stated that "Since the time of Darwin we have just as many gaps as before... a few we thought had been filled in, like the horses series are now known to be wrong."

# 3 (emphasis added) There are still other areas which the evolutionists regularly fail to discuss, and a careful examination of them will give us a better understanding of why it is statistically impossible for evolution to be a viable explanation for the origin of life as we know it. For example, if we used the evolutionist's own date of about one million years ago for the initial appearance of man and if population growth continued in the past at a rate equal to only 1/4 of its current rate of 2% per year, humans would be so numerous that we would literally pack the universe. For those who claim that this is impossible because of the lack of modern medicine and the outbreak of plagues, I suggest that you consider the fact that prior to the appearance of comparatively modern medicine in 1600 AD, world population was growing at a rate far in excess of 1/2 of one percent per annum. Also, plagues would not be a major problem until population became somewhat concentrated, and there is no evidence of such concentration before the middle ages. On the other hand, if we take the current level of the world's population and growth rate and then move backwards in time, we would be down to approximately 8 people by the date Archbishop Usher arrived at when he calculated the date for the Biblical flood by using the chronologies found in the Bible.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:38:02 AM
# 4 Another statistical problem which is not mentioned very often is one which I am certain that most of us have not even considered. Evolutionists invoke astronomically huge numbers not because they want to, but because they have to in order to bring the odds of something happening as they insist it must have into a more mathematically acceptable range of possibility. Think about this for a moment. Evolutionists tells us that plant life evolved over a period of literally hundreds of millions of years. They also tell us that insect life evolved over a similarly long period of time. Considering the extreme complexity of both the plant and insect kingdoms, even that time span does not appear to be long enough. However, now evolutionists are asking us to believe that certain events coincided to such an extent that after all those eons of time, the fig tree and the wasp not only evolved into their present forms by sheer chance, but that they did so simultaneously. They want us to accept the notion that in the spring of the same year they reached that point of evolution where the fig tree could only be pollinated by the wasp, and the wasp coincidentally acquired the ability or inclination to pollinate the fig. The fact that both things had to have happen simultaneously more than doubles the statistical odds necessary for either event to have happened separately.

There are many other examples of such symbiotic relationships in nature. Each one further compounds the mathematical impossibilities which the evolutionist must overcome if his theory is to have even the slightest chance of working out as he says it did. Having mentioned the statistical problem involved in the relatively simple process of pollination, let us now turn our attention to the much more complex question of animal reproduction.

In the case of evolutionary asexual reproduction what had to have happened was not only the chance development of a simple cell, but a 'simple' cell which also had within itself the ability to reproduce. In and of itself that statistically complicates the whole matter by astounding proportions. Yet the problem for the evolutionist only increases as we move from simple cell division to sexual reproduction.

Concerning such reproduction, we have to assume that both male and female reproductive organs, with all their intricacies, appeared at the same time. If we do not make such an assumption, the evolutionist is faced with two insurmountable problems. First, how did animals reproduce sexually even at the lowest levels of life, if total development were not complete? Secondly, even if they did manage to reproduce in some non sexual or asexual manner, we must assume that they had organs, or portions of organs developing over eons which would not be used until all the parts necessary for sexual reproduction, came into being. This however would be a violation of another evolutionary concept called 'natural selection.' According to this concept, nature, acting by itself, will eliminate that which is not used. As such, the individual reproductive organs would be eliminated by natural selection before the other organs evolved unless of course all the organs necessary for reproduction in both males and females 'evolved' at the same instant. No wonder the evolutionists need billions of years to try to get things to work out just right. They have to overcome the statistical improbabilities of these events occurring as they say they did. The theory of punctuated equilibria compounds the matter even more. According to this theory we are expected to believe that even greater changes occurred in a shorter span of time in the majority of all species. But evolutionists not only overlook this problem, they totally ignore the final mathematical mountain they face. That is, it is a statistical impossibility for all the hard shell and soft bodied organisms which are found in the Cambrian rock formation, and which are acknowledged to have appeared simultaneously to have done so by chance in even the 4 billion years which evolutionists maintain as the outside age for the Earth.

# 5 But then the Cambrian strata does not give the evolutionists the full 4 billion years to work with. You see, until 1995 most evolutionists took the position that the life forms found in the Cambrian rock formation which we discussed earlier, evolved over a period of 75 million years. While some evolutionists in the past admitted that 75 million years was an "impossibly short" period of time to work with, modern evolutionists have inadvertently boxed themselves into a much more difficult statistical corner.

# 6 Current evolutionary theory now says that "…all but one phyla in the (Cambrian) fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10 million years…" of that period. (parenthesis and emphasis added)

# 7 Now I ask you, if 75 million years was an impossibly short period of time on the evolutionists clock, how much more impossible is 10 million years?

Even after all that is settled in his mind, the evolutionist is faced with the fact that the virus, the simplest of all known living organisms, will grow only in or on living cells of higher life form!  Some evolutionary biologists attempt to get around this problem by asserting that a virus is in fact not a living organism. While most biologists would disagree with them, other simple organisms present modern evolutionists with an even greater insurmountable obstacle.

An example of just such an organism is the bacterial flagellum. While this image appears to be that of a machine, it is in fact a living organism which contains over 50 different protein parts. Note carefully that it has a minimum of three parts: a paddle, a rotor, and a 'motor'.  This particular bacteria 'swims' through our body by rotating its flagella, which in turn rotates the rotor which is attached to the paddles. As this organism is suspended in our bodies fluid, the movement of the paddles in this fluid causes the bacterial flagellum to move throughout our body in much the same way that a paddle wheel steamboat moves down the Mississippi - only in this instance the bacteria has no rudder. (For an animated picture of this movement, click on the graphic.  As this animation is 137 k, it may take a few minutes to download, but it is worth the wait)

According to Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, this bacteria, with its three parts, is irreducibly complex. That is, all three working parts must be there in  order for this organism to exist.  This in turn means that each part could not have 'evolved' separately, but must have all come into existence at the same time.

#8  Now, given the statistical odds against of each part of this 'living motor' developing by chance, how much more improbable is it to maintain that ALL THREE parts evolved by mere chance at the SAME TIME?

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:40:53 AM
It would appear that the electron microscope has shown us that so called 'simple' life forms are in fact anything but simple. Furthermore, assuming that scientists (not evolutionists, but scientists) are able to reproduce basic life forms under laboratory conditions, evolution will not have been proved. What it would prove is that thousands of human beings working in numerous laboratories throughout the world with the most sophisticated equipment, were able to produce simple life forms. In other words, they will have proved that intelligent beings can bring forth life, something any Christian could have told them from reading Genesis chapters 1 & 2.

But they are a long, long, long way from producing any form of life. Amino acids, produced in a laboratory are not living matter. For that matter evolutionists who have relied upon the 1953 experiments at the University of Chicago involving methane gas and amino acid production are beginning to admit that these experiments do not serve as proof of anything. In 1953 a graduate student by the name of Stanley Miller assumed that earth's supposed primordial atmosphere must have been composed of methane, ammonia and hydrogen gas. To simulate the oceans, he added water into the glass chamber containing these gases and then simulated lightening by sending electrical discharges through the whole mixture. One week later he discovered that some amino acids had formed in the bottom of the jar. Since amino acids are considered to be the building blocks for the proteins which make up living cells, Miller (and virtually every evolutionists since 1953) assumed that the mechanism for life's inception had been discovered. And virtually every secondary and college level biology textbook produced since 1953 have perpetuated this concept.

From the scientific perspective however this experiment was woefully inadequate. You see, there is not now, nor has there ever been any scientific evidence to assume that earth's atmosphere was ever composed primarily of anything other than the gases currently found in it. To assume that earth's atmosphere was at one time composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen gases simply because amino acids resulted from an electrical discharge passing through this mixture is to assume that evolution is fact. How then can this experiment be used as proof that evolution occurred when it's validity is dependent upon the notion it is attempting to prove in the first place. This is not science! What it is, is another example of the type of circular reasoning which evolutionists used in regards to the age of the fossils vis a via the rock layers in which they were found which we discussed earlier.

"New insights into planetary formation have made it increasingly doubtful that clouds of methane and ammonia ever dominated the atmosphere of primitive earth."

# 9 Furthermore, "…more and more researchers believe that a genetic master molecule - probably RNA - arose before the proteins did." (emphasis added)

# 10 What true science is finding is that the so-called 'simple cell' is anything but simple. In fact, the complications presented by the very existence of DNA and RNA in simple cells are such that no evolutionary biologist has yet had the courage to insist that we accept as fact the notion that DNA molecules are definitely chance happenings, having evolved from what ultimately must have been some type of inorganic matter.

Why won't they make such an absurd allegation? Simple, once you get past the whole issue of spontaneous generation (which Louis Pasteur was finally able to put to rest in the 1800's) the chances of even the first rung of DNA structure being reached randomly are 10 to the 87th power. That's 10 followed by 87 zeros, which translates to about 7 billion years. Not even the most ardent evolutionists is willing to take on the job of convincing anyone that it took close to 7 billion years for even the first single cell life form to emerge from what can only be described as primordial slime.

# 11 But DNA does not work by itself. It works only if 20 different proteins are also there to perform their functions, but these proteins only work at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other to operate, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must of necessity also explain the origin of the other. As we saw in the case of the fig tree and the wasp, the relationship between DNA and these 20 proteins more than doubles the statistical odds of either one developing separately by random chance.

So much for the single cell organism. What about the cells of more highly developed life forms? Each nuclei of every cell in the human body contains 23 pairs of chromosomes which were inherited from our parents. If these 46 chromosomes were hooked together, they would form a chain 7 feet long (although it would be so thin that you couldn't see it even with an electron microscope). The information coded on that chain would be enough to fill over 4,000 average size books. What's more, each cell in the human body - all 30 trillion of them - contains this identical information.

# 12 In addition to all that, we need to consider the following: While all the DNA material found in the average adult could fit into a space no bigger than an ice cube, if each strand in that cube were joined end to end, it would reach from the earth to the sun and back MORE THAN FOUR HUNDRED TIMES.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:45:12 AM
#13 However, we are expected to believe that all this somehow evolved by chance from nonliving matter!!!

The whole topic of DNA and the long term implications it holds for the theory of evolution could be the subject of a separate book in and of itself. However, I would be guilty of a gross oversight if I didn't at least touch upon one other point regarding DNA. This discussion will serve two purposes. First, it will again highlight the evolutionist's tendency to ignore the facts which disprove their theory. Second, it destroys a third major tenet of the evolutionary concept. This tenet holds that man evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world. In the words of Richard Leakey in 1977, "There is no single center where modern man was born."

# 14 Anthropologists such as Leakey who hold to this position are now faced with a serious problem. According to an article which appeared in the January 11, 1988 issue of Newsweek magazine, "...a new breed of anthropologists ... (t)rained in molecular biology... picked up a trail of DNA that led them to a single woman from which we are all descendants... (H)er's seems to be in all humans living today." (emphasis added)

# 15 Geneticists have in effect proved what Genesis 1:27 has been telling us all along, which is, "...modern humans didn't slowly and inexorably evolve in different parts of the world."

# 16 In fact, the evidence for this new discovery is so compelling that Eldredge's colleague Stephen Jay Gould, now acknowledges that "...all human beings despite differences in external appearance are really members of a single entity that's had a very recent origin in one " (emphasis added)

# 17 The evolutionists are unwilling to accept a date for this occurrence which is less than 200,000 years ago, but that is a far cry from the dates and places they previously insisted upon as fact.

What Dr. Alan Wilson, one of the geneticists who made these discoveries back in 1967 will acknowledge, is that there were probably no more than a "few thousand" members of this women's generation living on the face of the earth at the time she lived.

# 18 While scientists will not concede that this woman was the first women on earth, or the only one at the time, they also cannot totally dismiss the possibility that that is exactly who she was.

During the past few years questions have been raised concerning the computer programming techniques employed by the geneticists engaged in this study. Some scientists have even questioned the entire validity of this project because of these techniques. However, the results of this study have been confirmed by an even more comprehensive study conducted in 1991. The results of this verification study are so conclusive that the geneticists who conducted it have stated that the odds favoring the single ancestor theory are now 16,000 to 1

# 19 In other words, there appears to be little doubt in the minds of most researchers that all people alive today came from a single woman who most likely originated in the vicinity of Africa or the Middle East. Furthermore, in a totally different study, this one dealing with men's genes "Scientists have dealt a death blow to the idea that modern humans arouse simultaneously in different parts of the world. Analyzing a gene on the 'y' chromosome of 38 men from all over the globe they found no variation."

# 20 Traditional evolutionists also questioned the validity of the original study; however, they did so not for scientific reasons, but simply because it conflicted with their preconceived notions about the origin of man. The point is, this study was initially denounced not because of any supposed flaw in its technique, but solely because of the contradictory nature of its findings. Such reasoning represents the very antithesis of true science.

In regard to our supposed primate ancestry, many evolutionists still insist that the human line split off from that of the Chimpanzee about 15 million years ago. Geneticist though have proved that this simply cannot be so. The difference in the molecular structure of a particular blood protein in chimps and humans is so small that they could not possibly have gone their separate way any more than 5 million years ago. (Remember, the evolutionist's denial of a creator God forces them to see similarity in design not as evidence for a designer, but as evidence for evolution.) The point is, as Newsweek reported, "Traditional anthropologists did not appreciate being told that their estimates were off ... by ten million years.The geneticists calculation was dismissed and ignored for more than a decade." (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:49:07 AM
# 21 Richard Leakey, while having no formal education beyond high school, was trained by his father Louis Leakey to know how to "organize an expedition and ... to find fossils."

#22 He represents one type of traditional anthropologist who spends his time in "desiccated African rift valley(s)" looking for bones, as opposed to the more laboratory bound molecular biologists who have disproved the simultaneous appearance theory.

# 23 Yet the concern of even many of Leahey's more academically accredited "stones and bones" colleagues appears to be more closely related to their image than to their 10 million year mistake. "What bothers many of us paleontologists," said Fred Smith of the University of Tennessee, "is the perception that this new data from DNA is so precise and scientific, and that we paleontologists are just a bunch of bumbling old fools ... we may be bumbling fools, but we're not any more bumbling than they (the geneticists) are." (parenthesis & emphasis added)

# 24 Because of the insurmountable problems faced by the evolutionists, such as the ones we have just examined, 52 of the world's top mathematicians and evolutionists met at Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA to analyze the mathematical problems presented by the so called 'scientific' theory of evolution. After computer assisted analysis of all the data, they came to the conclusion that evolution was a mathematical impossibility. Dr. Murray Eden of the Mass. Institute of Technology stated that, "So great were the problems, that before we could have a viable theory of evolution there would have to be the discovery and elucidation of entirely new natural laws; chemical, chemical/ physical, and biological."

# 25 Why did Dr, Murray make such a statement? Simple, the theory of evolution violates virtually all of the known laws of true science.

Even all this though has not stopped the intrepid evolutionist from continuing to push his 'scientific' theory. Now however, it takes on more of the characteristics of science fiction than science. With but one notable exception, evolutionists can state only that the origins of DNA and RNA, like the explosive appearance of all those Cambrian multicellular life forms, are a mystery. That exception is the suggestion by Nobel prize winner Francis Crick that simple life forms originated somewhere else and came to earth by unknown means.

# 26 Needless to say, from the scientific perspective, this "it came from outer space" idea (otherwise known as 'directed aspermiai') leaves a great deal to be desired. First of all, like many other evolutionistic concepts, it is totally untestable. Secondly, by shifting the location of life's mysterious appearance from the earth to some other planet in some other solar system, the evolutionist is hoping that you will not notice that this explanation still does not explain how‚ simple cells appeared. (Crick's theory is a perfect example of an infinite regression which directs the reader's attention backward but never actually answers the original question)

Think about this for a moment. Why would it be even logical to assume that a life form which is so well suited to earth would have a better chance of evolving on some other planet, which must have had an identical atmosphere to that of earth's, and then survived the journey to earth on some asteroid or meteor?

When you think of it, the theory of the origin of the species known as Darwinian evolution actually has a very poor record of explaining origins. As we have seen so far, the origins of basic molecules such as DNA and RNA, and the explosive origins of Cambrian multi-cellular life forms are each classified as mysteries. But then from the evolutionist's standpoint, this is as it must be, for not one single piece of evidence exists among the fossil collections in all the museums of the world to prove that their origins were evolutionary in nature.

Evolutionists however have not limited their use of science fiction to explanations which deal with the appearance of lower life forms. While it is true that Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkley was one of the first academicians to publicly mention the fact that the fossil record simply did not support the notion that there were transitions between higher category life forms, it must be remembered that he was first and foremost, an evolutionist. Therefore, rather than accept the fact that the fossil record does support the concept of special creation, Goldschmidt proposed a hypothesis which became known as the theory of the "hopeful monster."

# 27 Since no graduated transitional forms could be discovered, Goldschmidt rightly assumed that none had ever existed. To explain the 'leap' from reptiles to birds he relied upon the concept of mutations. Even though it can be seen from simple observation that the vast majority of all genetic mutations are harmful, he assumed that within one generation there must have been literally hundreds of beneficial mutations which resulted in a higher life form. In effect, he was saying that a lizard laid an egg, only this particular lizard embryo had virtually every one of its organs altered by massive genetic mutations. When this egg hatched, what emerged was not a funny looking lizard, but a fully developed bird!!

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 06:50:59 AM

1) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 75

2) Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWE Gleerup, 1954) pp. 551-552, also Dr. Andrew Snelling, The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990) p. 13

3) Dr. Walter T. Brown Jr., Radio Interview, Point of View, USA Radio Network - October 3, 1988

4) Thomas F. Heinze - Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980) p 63

5) Eldredge - Monkey Business, op cit. 46

6) J Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded" Time, Vol.146 # 23 (December 4, 1995) p. 70

7) ibid

8 ) Michael J Behe - Darwin's Black Box - The Biological Challenge to Evolution (Free Press - 1996) pp 72-73

9) National Geographic March 1998

10) ibid see also Time, October 11, 1993, p. 71

11) Dr. D. James Kennedy, Sermon: "Creationism vs Evolution - Is Creationism Scientific?" Broadcast August 14, 1988, 10:30 AM CDT, WBGL Radio, Champaign, IL

12) Brown interview,

13) Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey - Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,1980) p. 46,

14) John Tierney, "The Search for Adam and Eve", Newsweek Vol.111 No.2 January 11, 1988, p. 47

15) ibid p. 46

16) ibid p. 47

17) ibid p. 47

18 ) ibid p. 50

19) William Allman, "The Origins of Modern Humans - Who We Were", US News and World Report, Vol 111 No. 12 (September 16, 1991), p. 58

20) Time, Vol. 145 No. 23 (June 5, 1995), p. 21

21) John Tierney ) Newsweek, op cit. p. 49

22) "Puzzling Out Man's Ascent", Time, Vol 110 No. 19 (November 7, 1977) , p. 77

23) John Tierney, Newsweek op cit. pp. 46-47

24) ibid p. 47

25) Kennedy, Sermon: "Creation..." op cit

26) Eldredge - op cit. p. 136

27) Eldredge - Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985) . p. 73; also Dr. D. James Kennedy, Collapse of Evolution, (Ft Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1981) p. 4

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:09:37 AM
Chapter IV
Oops, Sorry About That

As long as the topic of biological organs has been mentioned, allow me to use it as an introduction to a brief discussion of what else we can expect from what is in reality not the science of evolution, but the philosophy / religion of evolution. The topic of vestigial organs points out the evolutionist's tendency to grab at every shred of supposed evidence which comes along that seems to support their theory, and then assure us: "That is the way it was!" A vestigial organ is an organ which evolutionists claim served some useful function somewhere down the evolutionary line, but no longer is useful to the creature in which it is found. Biologists discovered early on in their research about 180 organs in the human being for which they could find no purpose. Evolutionists were quick to claim that these "vestigial" organs supported their theory.

# 1 They pointed out that since some of these same organs were found to be more highly developed in some lower life forms, additional proof of evolution has been established.

The Encyclopedia Britannica carries this line of reasoning when it reports that evolutionists believe that "animals that have the same organ in a fully developed and functional condition are believed to be close to the ancestry of the animal having the vestigial organ."

# 2 Now while that may sound scientific, here is where we begin to see part of the fallacy of the evolutionist's reasoning. Using their logic it is possible to deduce that a man is more closely related to the Koala Bear, which is a marsupial, and the rabbit, than he is to the great apes. You see, apes generally do not have appendixes; whereas, both Koala Bears and rabbits have fully developed ones. Since man's appendix is supposedly left over from his evolutionary development it is therefore obvious that we are more closely related to Bugs Bunny then to the primates.

Once again though true science has come to rescue us from such a ridiculous set of circumstances. And once again, the evolutionists have been proven wrong. True scientists have discovered that of the 180 organs whose functions were previously unexplainable, many have been found to produce necessary hormones. Several function only during the embryonic stage of human development, and some only in emergencies - coming on line as it were only when the primary system fails. Many biologists now feel that the few remaining unexplained functions will reveal themselves as research continues. In the mean time, what were supposedly vestigial organs have not proved evolution, but have reaffirmed in greater detail the complexity of God's final creation - mankind.

One further example of the evolutionist's use of a biological process as an absurd 'proof' of evolution deals with the infamous concept known as the "recapitulation theory." According to this notion, the human embryo, from the moment the egg is fertilized until its development is completed, passes through stages which reflect every stage of man's evolutionary process from single cell life form, to fish, to amphibian, to mammal, and finally, to primate. They referred to this by saying that "ontogeny recapitulates (repeats) phylogeny." Darwin continually refers to this notion in both his Origin of the Species and Descent of Man and it has been used by numerous evolutionists ever since.

Their use of this idea is foolish at best and spurious at worst because, as was noted by Dr. Keith Thompson, professor of Biology at Yale University, " a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties."

# 3 (emphasis added) Tragically however, this false proof for evolution didn't disappear from biology textbooks until the late forties.

# 4 For almost 30 years, the evolutionists were teaching as 'fact' something which had already been dismissed as intellectually meaningless.

Even today though it is not beyond an evolutionist to try and resurrect this long dead theory in a futile attempt to prove his theory, as did Dr. Anthony Wheeler during a debate at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, March 30, 1988.

# 5 The popular press is just as guilty of perpetrating this fraud. The August 1990 issue of Life magazine stated that a 6 week human embryo displays characteristics which demonstrate "... a strong link to an animal past " (emphasis added)

# 6 Remember now, this statement has been made in spite of the fact that there has not been even a hint of scientific justification to substantiate it for more than half a century!!!

A more interesting example of the evolutionist's willingness to accept anything that comes along are the fossil remains given the very impressive scientific name Eoanthropus dawsoni. These fossils, found in 1913, for more than 40 years were given the status within the evolutionary community as the second most important fossil find which established the evolutionary heritage of mankind.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:13:47 AM
# 7 Yet the 'Piltdown Man', as he was commonly called, was eventually discovered to be a deliberated hoax. And after more than four decades of misleading the public, evolutionists flippantly dismiss this hoax as merely "evidence of skulduggery in the ranks of academia," but do not mention the total failure of the 'evolutionary scientists' to notice the hoax.

# 8 As late as February 1953, writers such as Ruth Moore who had swallowed the evolutionist's line, were still assuring the general public that the Piltdown Man was "... the first modern man."

# 9 It's a shame that Ms.Moore did not wait 9 more months before publishing her book, because on November 21, 1953 the British scientific community finally exposed the Piltdown skull for what it really was; namely, one more piece of phony evolutionistic evidence.

# 10 Even this did not deter them. Evolutionists have been so anxious to prove their theory that they even hailed the discovery of a single tooth and gave it the even more impressive name Hesperopithecus haroldcooki. Using their preconceived notions of what he must have looked like, and this single tooth, the undaunted 'scientists' who gave credence to the Piltdown Man now gave us the "Nebraska Man." Unfortunately for them, the tooth upon which this 'man' was built, turned out to be that of a pig! The highly scientific explanation for this mistake given by one evolutionist on behalf of his colleagues was, "...pig and human molars are rather similar."

# 11 Keep in mind that this excuse is given in an attempt to explain why so called thoughtful, unbiased, through, and detail-minded evolutionistic scientists could not distinguish the molar of an extinct pig from that of a higher primate.

This excuse rings even more hollow when we consider the fact that the discoverer of this tooth, Harold J. Cook, had earlier co-authored an article with W. D. Matthew wherein they warned other evolutionists to be careful when dealing with the teeth of these now extinct pigs.

# 12 The point is, Cook and Matthew were clearly put on notice to proceed with caution, as were their colleagues, Henry Field Osborn and William King Gregory, to whom they had sent the tooth. However, in what can only be described as an effort to gain glory, and at the same time attack the credibility of William Jennings Bryan, the noted creationist attorney who was from the state of Nebraska, Osborn threw all caution to the wind. He proceeded with his irresponsible declaration that man's supposed ancestor had been discovered in Bryan's home state.

# 13 One further example of the evolutionist's rush to judgment is provided by the fossil remains of what became known as Neanderthal Man . The first fossil remains of this man were described as belonging to a creature who "walked with his knees permanently bent, his arms reaching forward, and his head thrust out on a short slanting neck."

# 14 In fact every picture or statute of Neanderthal Man which appeared before 1955 in any evolutionary textbook, or was found in any museum, depicted a hunched over primate that appeared to be some form of transition between man and ape.

In order to assure the ape-like appearance of its Neanderthal wax model, one American museum even spent thousands of dollars having human hair implanted all over its body. Remember now, this was done even though we have absolutely no way of telling anything about the color of Neanderthal's skin, his hair, or eye color, or the type and abundance of his hair.

# 15 Not only that, but most evolutionists now admit that if you put Neanderthal Man in a suit, he would go about completely unnoticed in the subway or supermarket.

# 16 Needless to say, there is a vast difference between the image which comes to mind when we think of a hunched over hairy primate, and that of the gentleman in the gray flannel suit he so easily could have been. This misconception concerning his appearance started when the first fossils of Neanderthal Man were found in 1856. They were reinforced by additional discoveries by the French anatomist/paleontologist, Marcellin Boule in 1911. It was not until about 1955, almost 100 years later, that a careful examination of those fossils showed that the man to whom they belonged suffered from a crippling case of rickets and also possible arthritis. After all the pictures were changed and all the old statutes were replaced with ones which depicted a fully upright Neanderthal Man, the previous oversight was quickly forgotten. No mention is made by evolutionists of the fact that for almost 100 years our parents, grandparents, and in some cases our great grandparents, were assured that it was a 'scientific fact' that Neanderthal Man was hunched over and ape-like in appearance when this simply was not true.

In each of the above mentioned cases, further research, study, and investigation has eventually exposed the evolutionist's rush to judgment, but not before many young minds had been exposed to the travesty represented by evolutionistic 'science'. As we shall now see though, the fossilized remains of humans present overwhelming problems for the evolutionist's theory even when they aren't tampered with.

Niles Eldredge maintains that "creationists fare poorly in the face of the tremendous amount of well publicized information about the human fossil record."

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:17:34 AM
# 17 However, when you consider that the evolutionist's track record includes Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal man, and a few other blunders which I haven't even discussed, I don't see how anyone could say that they have succeeded in their quest to prove man's evolutionary heritage. A fair question to ask at this point would be, "Exactly how extensive is the fossil record which supposedly proves man's evolutionary heritage?"

According to the noted anthropologist Dr. Lyall Watson, "The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin."

# 18 Aside from the fact that this is a most fitting place in which to store the supposed evidence of man's evolutionary past, Watson makes it clear that, as we have so often seen before, the evolutionist's case rests more on wishful thinking than on hard evidence. As noted by a science correspondent for U.S. News and World Report, even as late as Feb. 1989 the evolutionist's depiction of human development had been "... rendered with a dab of science and a bucketful full of speculation (and was) (b)ased as much on wishful thinking or intellectual as the scanty fossil evidence left by our ancestors." (emphasis and parenthesis added).

# 19 Photo journalist John Reader carries this thought one step further. Having first observed that "(t)he entire hominid (fossil) collection known today would barely cover a billiard table", Reader pointed out the fact that the "specimens themselves (are) often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present."

# 20 Furthermore, Andrea Dorfman, writing for Time in August 1994 while acknowledging that convincing evidence is hard to come by, pointed out that "…after a century of digging the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse." Theories of human evolution are based upon ideas which "…are data poor (and) imagination rich." (parenthesis and emphasis added)

# 21 When evolutionists like Dr. Tim White, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, honestly survey their field, they acknowledge that "(t)he problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."

# 22 (It should be noted here that White's statement was taken from an article in New Scientist which had been written to explain why some evolutionists mistook a dolphin rib for an ancient hominid collarbone!)

Furthermore, if the comparatively minute amount of human fossil 'evidence' is not sufficient, the most recent discoveries of Donald C. Johanson and Richard Leakey have themselves done as much to disprove the theory of evolution in this area as anything we have seen lately. While I most certainly do not accept the ages which evolutionists claim for their discoveries, I am going to refer to them because they have again painted themselves into a corner with their own words.

According to Johanson, both modern men and modern apes developed along parallel lines. Each line sprang from a common ancestor about 3.8 million years ago.

# 23 The scientific classification assigned to this ancestor is Australopithecus afarensis. More commonly known as "Lucy", this creature was about 3 1/2 feet tall and had long arms and long curved fingers and toes.

# 24 (It should be noted here that long arms and long curved fingers & toes are anatomical features used for swinging from branches. On July 21, 1986 Johanson uncovered some additional fossils which he classified as homo habilis (handy-man). In spite of the fact that these fossils reveal a ‚creature who was 3' tall (6" shorter than Lucy) with long arms, and long curved fingers & toes, and a skeletal structure which was just as primitive as Lucy's, these fossils were placed immediately below true man in the evolutionary chain. Perhaps these fossils were placed there by Johanson because he believes that they were only 1.8 million years old.

# 25 Their reported age, and assigned position in the evolutionist's time chart means that 2 million years transpired without any noticeable change taking place between Lucy and her direct descendants. This however is not the main problem facing evolutionists today in regards to these fossils.

In 1984 Richard Leakey found the full skeleton of a 12 year old boy who was already 5'4" tall when he died. Had he lived to manhood, it is conservatively estimated that he would have reached 6'.

# 26 In addition to this, his post cranial skeleton (that portion below the skull) was found to be so similar to that of modern man's, that Alan Walker, co-leader of Leakey's team, said that an average pathologist could not tell them apart! Furthermore, when a jaw was placed on its skull, it looked remarkably like the Neanderthal Man whose fossils have been classified as true man.

In spite of all this though, the boy's fossils have been classified a step below Neanderthal. Leakey placed these fossils within the class known as Homo erectus‚ (above Lucy, but below modern man). I believe that as was the case with Johanson, the supposed age of these fossils affected Leakey's decision.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:20:39 AM
# 27 After all, evolutionists maintain that Neanderthal didn't evolve until anywhere from 300,000 to 100,000 years ago.

# 28 Since this boy is supposedly much older than that, Leakey probably felt forced to classify him in a more primitive category, even if he had to ignore the physical evidence in order to do so.

According to Leakey, this boy's fossils are 1.6 million years old, yet they are so similar to modern men that even a pathologist would have difficulty distinguishing the two. Remember also that this boy was well on his way to being 6' tall and looked at least as good as Neanderthal, who in turn looked like the gentleman in the gray flannel suit whom you may have seen in the mall last week. We can now begin to see the problem which these recent discoveries present to the evolutionists. Using Leakey's dates they are forced to admit that only 200 thousand years separated Johnson's 3-foot-tall, which supposedly live 1.8 million years ago, and Leakey's unquestionably human boy, who supposedly lived 1.6 million years ago.

The evolutionists are now faced with the task of convincing both themselves and us, that in only 200,000 years (which is really no more than a drop in the evolutionist's time bucket) all these changes took place:

1) We increased in size from 3' to 6'.

2) Our long arms shortened.

3) Our curved fingers both shortened and straightened out.

4) Our curved toes also became shorter and straighter.

5) Our brain size doubled.

6) Our primitive skeletons took on totally modern features.

They try to tell us that these changes occurred in less than 200,000 years in spite of the fact that Johanson's primates retained their long arms, long curved fingers & toes, and small brains for 2 million years (the time span between Astralopithecus afarenis and homo habilis).

Even though Johanson's primates supposedly remained under 3 1/2 feet tall for 2 million years, we are now supposed to believe that we evolved to 6 feet in just 200,000 years. Even though Johanson's primate's brains remained unchanged for 2 million years, we are supposed to now believe that in 200,000 years they evolved to double its previous size. What's even more astounding though is that they are also trying to tell us that in the last 1.6 million years there have been comparatively few changes in the human line. Remember, one of their own admitted that the skeleton of Leakey's new find is virtually indistinguishable from that of men today.

The evolutionists' own words and calculations have now forced them to take the position that there were 2 million years of no change between Johanson's two finds. This period was in turn followed by a span of 200,000 years in which massive changes occurred (the supposed time span between Johanson's latest find and that of Leakey's). These two periods were themselves followed by 1.6 million years of virtually no change within the human lineage (the period from Leakey's discovery till now). It seems clear then that Johanson's and Leakey's discoveries do not support the theory of evolution - punctuated or otherwise.

There are however other problems which must be overcome by the evolutionists who want to claim Lucy as one of their distant ancestors. And as we have so often seen before, these problems have not been openly discussed. the anatomical features which supposedly set Lucy apart from modern chimpanzees are her knee and hip joints. what most people don't realize is that this knee joint was found in a rock strata 200 feet lower and one and a half miles away from where the rest of Lucy's fossil fragments. Another significant point which Johanson failed to mention is the fact that orangutans and spider monkeys have valgus knee joints virtually identical to Lucy's. But then these are not the most damaging facts. You see, Lucy was discovered in 1974, but in 1965 nine teeth fragments, one end of an arm bone, and 2 shinbone ends were discovered in a lower strata in Kanapoi, Africa. When found, these fragments were described as 'human like and indistinguishable from homo sapiens."

# 29 Now here's the evolutionists dilema, 'How could more modern human bones be found in a strata which evolutionists say is more than 700,000 years older than Lucy?'

 What all these facts do show us is that when man appeared on the earth, he was fully formed and was virtually indistinguishable from 'modern man.' What they further reveal is that while man and the primates share certain anatomical features, they were, are now, and always will be separate distinct creatures. Once again, the evolutionists have made exaggerated claims which later discoveries have totally invalidated. Some prominent evolutionists however are now willing to admit that in reality, the "tremendous amount of well publicized information about the human fossil record" may in fact be well publicized, but that it proves absolutely nothing. Sir Zolly Zuckerman, himself a confirmed evolutionist, acknowledges that as to "... the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful (evolutionist) anything is possible... the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time... (if man) evolved from some ape-like creature ... (it was) without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation (emphasis and parenthesis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:22:57 AM
# 30 Seemingly undaunted by all this though, the evolutionists charge ahead. They have been quick to claim that the extinct archaeoperyx (arc' ee op trix) was an intermediate between the reptiles and the birds. Archaepotryx fossils have been found in the Upper Jurassic limestone formations of Bavaria. According to the evolutionist's dating methods, this makes them 150 million years old. While the Archaeopteryx had fully developed feathers (and is therefore classified as a bird) it didn't have hollow bones or a keeled sternum. According to Eldredge, the "keeled sternum necessary for truly vigorous flight had not developed in the avian lineage."
 # 31 In fact he is so sure that it is an intermediary which cannot be explained away by the creationists that he states, "Bluster as they might, creationists cannot wriggle out of Archaeopteryx."
 # 32 Allow me the opportunity to "bluster" for a moment. If the fossil remains of a more "advanced" bird were found which appeared to be "older" than Archaeopteryx, it would be the evolutionist, and not the creationist who would be on the horns of a dilemma. What if the fossils of a bird were found with more "modern" birdlike features such as hollow bones and a keeled sternum? What if these fossils were found in the Dockum formation which evolutionists maintain is 75 million years older than the Upper Jurassic? The evolutionists would then have to explain how the Archaeopteryx "evolved" having more "primitive" features than its supposed ancestor. How could Archaeopteryx be a transition between reptile and bird when one of its supposed ancestors had more birdlike features than it did? Finally, how could the newly discovered fossils be considered a transition when the number of supposedly reptilian features it has were less than those of Archaeopteryx which is already classified as a true bird?

Apparently it is the evolutionist who must now "bluster" because such fossils have been found. Several of them in fact.

# 33 The evolutionists who refused to accept Archaeopteryx for what it apparently was; namely, a totally distinct separate species of true bird, have now been forced to abandon the 'fact' that it was a transition between reptile and bird.

However, like before, the damage has already been done because at least one more generation of impressionable school children has again been assured that evolution is as real as gravity.

# 34 Whereas, the evidence upon which that assertion was based has, like so many times before, been proven false. As the knowledge of these new discoveries slowly filters down through the educational system, all the talk of Archaeopteryx as a 'transition' will go the way of the Neanderthal hunchback pictures. It will be quietly forgotten by the same 'evolutionistic scientists' who previously assured us it was a fact. The only fact that remains is that if the Archaeopteryx fossils are indeed genuine, they represent a separate distinct species of true bird and there are still no transition fossils between species.

The fossil record also fails to support the theory of evolution in regards to the fish, the amphibians, the mammals, and the plants. And, as we shall now see, there are at least some evolutionists who are willing to admit this is indeed the case. Concerning the plants, Chester A. Arnold, Professor of Biology and Curator of Fossil Plants at the University of Michigan has stated that "(a)s of yet, we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present." (emphasis added)

# 35 As for the fishes, J. R. Norman of the Department of Zoology at the British Museum of Natural History observed that "(t)he geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes. " (emphasis added)

# 36 Moving from fishes to amphibians, we find this disclosure by J. Stahl of St. Anselm's College, "... the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, (so), paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved…"(emphasis added)

# 37 The supposed transition from reptile to mammal fares no better in the fossil record either.

Noted evolutionary writer Roger Lewin has acknowledged the reptile/mammal connection to be nothing more than "an enigma".

# 38 At the same time, A.J. Kelso, Professor of Physical Anthropology at the University of Colorado, accurately points out the fact that " the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils." (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:26:04 AM
# 39 It is hard enough to believe self proclaimed scientists who are so easily taken in because of their intense desire to obtain proof for their theory, but the problem is compounded by what can only be described as a tendency on their part to mislead the general public when it comes to the supposed evidence of Darwinian evolution. Whether this tendency is intentional, or simply the result of carelessness, I will not presume to judge. I leave that to the reader.

A prime example of this tendency can be seen in the fossil remains of what has become known as "Java Man." Those fossil remains, which have been termed an intermediate between modern man and his ape-like ancestors, consisted of a skull cap and a thighbone. They were discovered by Eugene Dubois who noted that the skull cap was ape-like in appearance, but the thighbone was, without a doubt, that of a modern man. It was not made known until 30 years Dubois reported his discovery that some normal modern man skull caps were also present in the same area. Regardless of what fossils have or have not been found in other locations, the unanswered question is, "Why did Dubois actively conceal the presence of modern man skull bones within the same general formation when such information would have been paramount to any impartial evaluation of his find?"

More importantly though this further question must be answered, "Why has the evolutionistic community continued to acknowledge Dubois' fossils as an example of a transitional man when, near the end of his life, Dubois admitted that the skull he used for his "man" was in fact that of a giant gibbon?"

# 40 The same mind set which caused early evolutionists to continue accepting spontaneous generation as a viable explanation for the 'origin' of life 200 years after it had been disproved by William Harvey, has caused the current crop of evolutionists to continue misrepresenting the fossil record to us.

# 41 Before continuing with my discussion of the evolutionist's misrepresentation of the fossil record, allow me to point out the fact that their tendency to create entire beings from as little evidence as one fossilized bone extends to the dinosaurs as well as to man's supposed ancestors. According to A Field Guide to Dinosaurs, the Arctosaurus was developed from a single vertebra which had previously been thought to be that of a turtle. The Diplotomodon the Paronychodon, and the Macrodontophion were all developed from single teeth. Furthermore, the single jaw used to develop the Colonosaurus could just as easily have belonged to a bird or sea lizard, while the four teeth used to construct the Chienkosaurus could just as likely have come from an ancient crocodile.

# 42 While on this topic, it should probably be noted that the evolutionist's tendency to play fast and loose with fossil remains likewise also extends to the dinosaurs, just as it did to our own supposed ancestors. Many of us remember the pictures of the Brontosaurus dinosaur as featured in the "B.C." and "Flintstone" cartoon strips. This denizen of the past with its huge body and small slender head was also featured in numerous advertising campaigns. In fact, we have seen so many pictures of this creature that for many of us it is his image which comes to mind whenever we hear the word 'dinosaur.' But there is a problem with that image. The brontosaurus as pictured never existed! You see, the men who found the brontosaurus fossils forgot to tell us that the skeleton they found was complete except for its head. This did not deter them though. What they did was to take a skull which had been found about 3 miles away and put it on their skeleton, thereby creating the brontosaurus. It has since been acknowledged that the brontosaurus was actually composed of the skeleton of a diplodocus and the skull of an apatosaur .

# 43 If errors of this type have been made when whole skeletons have been found, how can we now blindly accept the notion that there were as many different species of dinosaurs as these men now assure us there were? This is especially so when we remember that many of their creations are based upon only one or two fossils.

But there is even a more compelling reason to be skeptical of any evolutionist's interpretation of the fossil record. Allow me to point out the fact that between 1940 and 1980, the entire evolutionary community has been hiding the fact that the fossil record simply does not support the theory of gradual transitions between major groups. While one evolutionists has said it is a "vicious lie" for creationists to accuse his colleagues of such unprofessional actions. Yet, as we saw earlier, his colleague made the very same accusation.

# 44. This same colleague even went so far as to state that the active conspiracy to hide the lack of transitional evidence from the general public has been the ‚"trade secret" of the paleontologist.

# 45 I am therefore forced to ask this question, "Why should we believe any supposed 'science' which keeps as a 'trade secret' the very facts which Darwin himself said would destroy his theory?"

In some instances evolutionists have even made conflicting statements themselves. Niles Eldredge said in his book Monkey Business (page 98 ) that creationists were not accurate in accusing his colleagues of ignoring the very fossil evidence which disproves Darwin's theory of gradual evolution. However, in his other book Time Frames (pages 187-189), he makes the very same accusation himself. Therein he states that "the old paleontological reaction... was to throw out genetics or invent a seemingly more suitable...theory. ...(N)early every paleontologist who reviewed Darwin's Origin of the Species pointed to his (Darwin's) evasion of this salient feature of the fossil record." (Parenthesis & emphasis added) It should be noted that the salient feature of the fossil record which Darwin evaded was the fact that there is no evidence within it to support his notion of gradual transitions.

Don't think for one minute that Darwin was not acutely aware of what he was doing. According to Eldredge, in order for Darwin to establish the plausibility of the very idea of evolution "...Darwin felt that he had to undermine the older ... doctrine of species fixity." (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:29:04 AM
# 46 This was not going to be easy because the fossil record simply did not support Darwin's theory. What the fossil record does show us though is that all the different species (using Eldredge's own words) "... tend to remain remarkably stable, recognizable entities for millions of years."

# 47 While I strongly disagree with Eldredge's assessment concerning the time frame involved, I do most certainly agree that species do remain remarkably stable.

It was this very fact of species stability which remained (again using Eldredge's own words), an "ugly inconvenience" for Darwin. Therefore, Darwin simply ignored it.

# 48 Not only did Darwin intentionally side step this issue, but Eldredge points out that "stasis (Eldredge's own word for species stability) had continued to be ignored until Gould and I showed that such stability ... must be confronted." (parenthesis added)

# 49 But even they did not confront the issue of species stability until 1972. This means that evolutionists had, for 115 years, been ignoring the very facts which Darwin himself knew disproved his entire theory of gradual evolution. What's just as interesting though is that even when Eldredge and Gould attempted to confront this issue, all they could offer us was 'punctuated equilibria.' And as we have already seen, Eldredge admits that as late as 1985, 12 years after it was initially proposed, this notion was still not yet totally thought through or completely testable!!!

The evolutionist therefore, is still faced with the same problem we first saw in Chapter 2. The facts clearly do not support the theory of evolution - punctuated or otherwise. But rather then acknowledge the only logical alternative (special creation), the evolutionist now must hold on to the totally unscientific notion called punctuated equilibrium. Again though you do not need to rely solely upon my word for this. Robert E. Ricklefs, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Pennsylvania has been quoted as saying that "The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis, but because it appears to resolve a dilemma." The dilemma of course is that the fossil record simply does not support Darwin's theory. Ricklefs continued his observation by noting that the punctuated equilibria "...model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground (emphasis added)

# 50 As you may recall, Eldredge, in his book Monkey Business, (page 130) explained the lack of Precambrian intermediate fossils by stating that since thee supposed intermediates were "soft bodied," it was "extremely unlikely that they would have become fossilized. Yet, in the very same book, (page 44) he acknowledges the existence of numerous fossilized "soft bodied creatures (including those)... of the... jelly fish phylum ... up to seven feet long ... (from places) as far flung as Australia, Newfoundland, England, Siberia, and South Africa." (parenthesis added) Needless to say, conflicting statements of this type only lead to more confusion.

Why should we now believe any group of so called 'scientists' who insist that "Students ought to know that the evidence for evolution has been scrupulously scrutinized daily by thousands of biologists for well over a hundred years..."

# 51 the scrupulous scrutinizers we are expected to wholeheartedly believe have either purposely withheld the 'trade secret' that graduated transitional evidence does not exist, or were not observant enough to notice the obvious? If indeed 1,000 such biologists spent only 2 hours per working day for 100 years we would have 26 million man hours of research which was either devoted to a cover up, or was so incompetent that it could not even see that what it was looking for obviously did not exist.

In either case, it really doesn't matter. You could have 1 billion hours of the type of scrutinization which failed to notice the hoax of Piltdown Man, the mistake of Nebraska Man, the oversight of Neanderthal's rickets, or the rush to judgment represented by the belief that Archeoptryx was a transition, and it would still not make the evidence for evolution any more valid or scientific. This type of scrutinization merely compounds the wishful thinking of those early evolutionists which led to the eloquently fabricated assertions as to why the known facts did not conform to what the evolutionists knew was true.

Eldredge states that, while there is dissent within the ranks of evolutionists today, " recently as a decade ago there was something approaching unanimity" amongst his colleagues. I submit to you that that unanimity was the direct result of the decision by the vast majority of his colleagues to make up what he himself referred to as "eloquent" stories explaining why the fossil record did not support something which their preconceived notions told them it had to support. I further submit that the dissension which appears within the ranks of the evolutionists today is not the result of "willing admissions by paleontologist (who are evolutionists) concerned with accuracy," as some would have us believe, but that it is the direct result of true scientists who are unwilling any longer to put up with the travesty to impartial research which such "trade secrets" represent. (parenthesis added)

# 52 Concerning the willingness of evolutionary paleontologists to admit their errors, it should be noted that Henry Fairfield Osborn, who was the driving force behind the 'Nebraska Man' fiasco, never publicly acknowledged his gross error in assigning a pig molar to a high primate. In spite of the fact that it was even his own expedition which inadvertently turned up the evidence which sounded the death knoll for Nebraska Man, Osborn himself refused to openly recognize the facts. Instead, all he did was to conveniently fail to ever again mention the Nebraska Man in any of his subsequent writings on man's supposedly evolutionary ancestry.

# 53 But then he is not alone. Stephen Jay Gould admits that if you have read any evolutionary material produced in the last fifty years, " will probably not have encountered Hesperopithecus..."

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:31:41 AM
# 54 Another example of the confusing statements which are made by evolutionists concerns the issue of brain size in man's supposed ancestors. According to M. F. Ashley Montague in An Introduction to Physical Anthropology

# 55 and Carleton S. Coon in, The Story of Man

# 56 - the very textbook I used in an undergraduate anthropology course, the brain size of the average Neanderthal Man was 100 cc larger than the average person today. The 1965 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, reports the finding that the average brain capacity of Cro-Magnon Man was at least 200 cc larger than that of modern man.

# 57 Why then would any evolutionists state that. "Our own lineage shows progressive increase in both absolute body size and relative brain size ... brain size has increased within our lineage."

# 58 Since modern men have smaller brains but are physically larger than our supposed ancestors, there is a definite discrepancy between his statement and the supposedly measurable facts. Or are we supposed to believe that man's brain evolved by first getting bigger and then smaller? On the other hand, if Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man, both of whom had larger brains than modern men, are not part of our heritage, why are they always included in the evolutionist's charts?

# 59 If the measurements are wrong then the evolutionists are extremely careless, and should therefore not be taken seriously when they toss around figures such as 4 billion years. If the measurements are correct then why would the statement have been made? Perhaps it is an attempt to tell us that by 'relative brain size' he means that while modern man's brain is physically smaller than that of his ancestor's, we can somehow tell that portions of it were obviously larger or more useful. But that is nothing more than pure "speculation", nothing more than a "hazard guess"

# 60 That would not be the statement of a scientist who makes statements which are based solely upon observation. After all, there are no fossilized brains available for examination.

‚ Even other evolutionists have recognized that to say you can determine the function of a brain by measuring its size is "extremely dangerous." To say that you can determine the function of a brain by measuring the skull is "extremely difficult, if not impossible." Why? Because, about the "all important internal circuitry (of early man's brain) we know nothing." ‚(parenthesis added)

# 61 As to which is in error - the statement or the measurements, I do not know. Either one casts a shadow of doubt over the 'scientific' nature of the theory of evolution.

However, fluctuating size is not the only problem facing evolutionists when the topic of the human brain is raised. Even though atheistic evolutionists such as Isaac Asimov have acknowledged that the human brain " the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe," they still insist that we accept their notion that this most miraculous organ evolved by mere chance.

# 62 "Exactly how complex is the brain?" I'm glad you asked. The average human brain contains about 10 billion neurons. Each neuron is in contact with as many as 10,000 other neurons by means of connections called dendrites. The total number of neuron interconnections is approximately 1000 trillion. "Just how many connections is that?" Again, I'm glad you asked. According to the evolutionist Michael Denton, a fair analogy would be as follows:

Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest ...containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained ten thousand leaves, the total number of leaves in the forest would be ... equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain.

# 63 As inconceivable as it may be when we consider the foregoing information, most evolutionists still expect us to accept their notion that the brain evolved by chance, either as a result of natural selection

# 64 or by mutation

# 65 What is even more inconceivable though is the fact that these claims are made in spite of the fact that many other evolutionists, such as Jeffrey S. Wicken of the Biochemistry Department at Behrend College have finally acknowledged that "... random mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding" to serve as the mechanism by which such an organ could have come into existence. (emphasis added)

# 66 And while natural selection does indeed produce changes WITHIN species, such prominent evolutionists as Steven M. Stanley of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at John Hopkins University also concede the fact that, "(g)radual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution."(emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:33:37 AM
# 67 But then the sheer absurdity of relying upon mutation and natural selection as the mechanism by which life, in all its variety and complexity developed can be seen on a much lower rung of the evolutionary ladder than the human brain. Some evolutionists now admit that "(t)he Cambrian explosion (the sudden appearance of multicellular life forms we discussed earlier) has caused experts to wonder if the twin Darwinian imperatives of genetic variation and natural selection provide an accurate framework for understanding evolution." (parenthesis and emphasis added)

# 68 In spite of all this, in December of 1995 The National Research Council issued a National Science Education standard which proclaimed that all K-12 students in the U.S. should be taught that …"Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms…"

# 69 Needless to say, not only have the waters of the theory of evolution been troubled by 'trade secrets', hoaxes, horrendous oversights, poor judgment, and flawed research, but now they have been hopelessly poisoned by the continued acceptance of disproven and discounted propositions such as natural selection and mutation.


1) Thomas F. Heinze - Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980) p. 20

2) Encyclopedia Britannica 1972 Ed, Vol. 1, p. 983

3) Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated", American Scientist Vol. 76, (May/June 1988 ), p. 273

4) ibid p. 273

5) Acts and Facts Vol 17, No.7, (El Cajun, CA: Institute For Creation Research, 1988 ), p. 3

6) "The First Days of Creation", Life, No 12 (August 1990), p. 40

7) F. Clark Howell - Early Man, Life nature Library, (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) p. 13; also Heinze, op cit. p. 51

8 ) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 128

9) Ruth Moore - Man and Fossils, (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) p. 345

10) Carleton S. Coon - The Story of Man, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1965) p. 40

11) Eldredge op cit. p. 128

12) Stephan Jay Gould, "An Essay on a Pig Roast", Natural History Vol. 98 No. 1 (January, 1989) p. 20-22 11)ibid pp. 20 & 25

13) Ibid. pp. 20-25

14) Coon, op cit, p. 39

15) ibid p. 36

16) Howell, op cit. p. 88; also Donald Johanson, "Lucy", University of Chicago Magazine, Vol 73 ( Spring 1981), p. 4

17) Eldredge - op cit. p. 126

18 ) Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, Vol 90, (May 1982), p. 44

19) William Allman, , "The First Humans", U.S. News & World Report Vol. 106 No. 8 (February 27, 1989) p. 56-59

20) John Reader, "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus", New Scientist, Vol 26, (March 1981), p. 802

21) Andrea Dorfman, Time, Vol 143, No. 11 (March 14, 1994), pp 80-97

22) Tim White, as quoted by Ian Anderson, "Hominoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin's Rib", New Scientist, Vol 28, (April 1983), p. 199

23) Pat Railer, "Redefining Man's Past", The Albuquerque Journal, Tuesday, April 20, 1982; also Donald C. Johanson, "Ethopia Yields First Family of Early Man" National Geographic, Vol 150, No. 6, (December 1976), pp. 802 - 811

24) Paul Raeburn, "Skeletons in the Closet: Did Lucy Really Walk?", Albuquerque Journal, (Sunday, June 12, 1983), p. C 10

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:35:40 AM
25) D. C. Johanson, "New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tansania", Nature Vol 327, (May 1987), p. 205

26) Associated Press, "Ancient Kenyan Lake Bed Now a Paleontologists Paradise", Albuqurque Journal, (Wednesday, November 7, 1984) , p. C12

27) Duane Gish, "Startling Discoveries Support Creationism", Impact (September, 1987) , p. II

28 ) World Book Encyclopedia, Vol 14, p. 85 (1985 ed.); also John J. Putman, "The Search for Modern Humans", National Geographic Vol. 174, No. 4, (October 1988 ), p. 456

29) Acts and Facts, (El Cajon, CA: Creation Research Institute, 1995) p. 'o', see also "Johanson & Sagan" University of Chicago Magazine, Vol. 73 No. 4 (Spring 1981) p. 3

30) Solly Zuckerman - Beyond the Ivory Tower (Londen: Zuckerman, 1970), pp. 19 & 64

31) Eldredge - op cit. p. 123

32) ibid p. 122

33) "Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypothesis", Nature Vol 322, (August 1986), p. 677

34) Eldredge - op cit. p. 23

35) Chester A Arnold, An Introduction to Paleontology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947) p. 7

36) J. R. Norman, in P. H. Greenwood editor, "Classification and Pedigrees: Fossils", A History of Fishes, 3rd ed. (London: British Museum of Natural History, 1975), p. 343,

37) Barbara J. Stahl Problems In Evolution, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1974), p. 195

38 ) Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out", Science, Vol 212, ( June 1981), p. 1492

39) A. J. Kelso, in "Origin and Evolution of the Primates" Physical Anthropology (New York: Lippincott, 1974), p. 142, also Dr. Andrew Snelling, editor - The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990), p.13

40) Sylvia Baker- Evolution: Bone of Contention (England: Evangelical Press, 1980) p. 14

41) ibid p. 4

42) Back To Genesis, Vol 18 No, ( ElCajon, CA:Institute for Creation Research, 1Jan 1989), p. 6

43) Paul S. Taylor, "Dinosaur Mania and Our Children", Impact Vol. 16 No.5 (May 1989) p. III

44) Eldredge - op cit. p. 189

45) Dr. D. James Kennedy - The Collapse of Evolution, (Ft Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1981), p. 6

46) Niles Eldredge - Time Frames: Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equillibria (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), p. 189

47) ibid p. 188

48 ) ibid p. 189

49) ibid p. 189

50) Robert E. Ricklefs, "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution", Science, Vol.199, (January 1978 ), p. 59

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 07:36:56 AM
51) Eldredge - Monkey Business, op cit. p. 23

52) ibid pp. 52 & 131

53) Gould, op cit p. 20

54) ibid p. 16

55) M.F. Ashley Montag, An Introduction To Physical Anthropology (Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1960), pp. 104-203

56) Carleton S. Coon, op.cit. p. 40

57) Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 ed. Vol 6, p. 792

58 ) Eldredge - Monkey Business op cit. p. 75 (see also p. 126)

59) Howell, op cit. pp. 30-33; also Ruth Moore - Evolution, Life Young Readers Library, (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) pp. 108-109

60) Howell, ibid p. 82-83

61) ibid

62) Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institute Journal, Vol 1 No. 5 (June 1970), p. 10

63) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 330

64) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), p. 5

65) Carl Sagen, The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence, (New York: Random House,1977) p. 120

66) Jeffery S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion"  Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol 77, (April 1979), pp. 351-352

67) Steven M. Stanley, "A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Llevel", Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA Vol 72(2), (February 1975), p. 646

68 ) J Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded" Time, Vol.146 # 23 (December 4, 1995), 74

69) "Science Education: What Students Should Know", Popular Science (March, 1996), p.31

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:01:02 AM
Chapter V
Let's Assume

Niles Eldredge's statements are used to "make a forceful fascinating case for the continuous teaching of evolution" in our public schools.

# 1 However, he is the "scientist" who cites the authority of a reader survey in Glamor magazine to establish the point that creationist thinking has been gaining ground in America I am not discrediting Glamor magazine, but I am sure that the Gallup poll uses a much more scientific approach to polling than does Glamor, but then Glamor makes no pretense of being scientific - evolutionists do.

Scientists should not rely upon reader surveys in Glamor Magazine or circular reasoning to establish their points, but evolutionists have been known to do both. Eldredge maintains that the accusation that his geologist colleagues use or have used circular reasoning is "serious ... and ... of course, false."

# 2 His denial though needs to be evaluated in light of David M. Raup's admission that "(t)he charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."

# 3 (If you will recall, David Raup is Chairman of the Geophysical Sciences Department of the University of Chicago.)

It also needs to be evaluated in light of admissions by other evolutionists who concede the obvious. In 1956 R.H. Rastall, writing for Encyclopedia Britannica observed that "... from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are ... arguing in a circle."

# 4 Twenty years later J. E. O'Rourke not only reaffirmed the point that "... circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales," but added that "... geologist(s) (have) ... never bothered to think of a good reply (to the charge of circularity) feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." (parenthesis added)

# 5 In other words, even though the circular reasoning processes which evolutionists have relied upon leaves much to be desired from the intellectual standpoint, they never felt compelled to justify their position because to many gullible people were willing to accept what they said on face value.

Concerning the whole issue of age, you might well ask, "How did evolutionists get the dates of fossils?" Their answer was, "From the position which fossils occupy in the rock in which they are found; oldest on the bottom - youngest on top." That seems to make sense. However, now if you inquired as to how they got the dates for the rocks themselves, you might be told, "By observing what fossils are found in them." You see, evolutionists know that the fossils found in Cambrian rock formations must be hundreds of millions of years old. Therefore, the rocks in which they are found must also be of the same age. "Hold it," you exclaim, "that's not scientific!" Maybe not, but it worked for them for over a hundred years until they latched on to radio isotope dating techniques.

Isotope dating is critical to the theory of evolution because it comes up with dates which seem to help the evolutionists overcome the horrendous mathematical improbabilities presented by their theory. Notice that I said "seems to help" them. In reality, even the dates which isotope dating comes up with are not far enough back in time to bring the theory of evolution into the realm of mathematical possibilities. At first evolutionists thought carbon fourteen dating would give them the hundreds of millions of years they needed. It did not, so it was discarded as unreliable for anything more than a few thousand years old.

# 6 Isotope dating is based upon man's ability to accurately measure the rate of decomposition of a material from one form into another. The rock itself cannot be dated, only the material which is found in it. IF we know how much of the original (parent) material was in the rock when the rock was formed, and IF we know how much of the subsequent (daughter) material was also in the rock when the rock was formed, and IF we assume the rate of decay from parent into daughter has been constant for the last billion or so years and finally, IF we assume that nothing has acted upon either the parent or daughter material in such a way so as to alter the amount of either material present during this entire billion year period, THEN‚ we can measure the amount of the parent material still in the rock, the amount of daughter material still in the rock, apply the rate of decay, and thereby estimate the age of the rock. Phew, that's a lot of assumptions.

Since it is impossible to test the assumption that the rate of decay determined today has been the same for several billion years, all I can say is that it takes a great deal of "faith" to believe it. However, several points need to be considered before the other assumptions can be accepted. In isotope dating two separate materials are involved in the dating process: the parent and the daughter. Various elements found in common ground water have been found to dissolve virtually every one of the parent elements and the subsequent daughter elements into which they decompose. What's more, this dissolving process can be faster in the parent than it is in the daughter and vice versa. Needless to say, this could, and would drastically effect the age derived from any dating process which must assume that both the parent and daughter elements have never been affected by any other agent during their supposed 4 billion year history. Since many, if not all of these elements could have been exposed to such agents during the Genesis flood, I do not feel that I can accept either the assumption that no agent ever effected these elements, or that we can accurately know the original amount of either the parent or daughter element present in the rock when the rock was formed.

In spite of the fact that most evolutionists leave the impression that isotope dating is fool proof, some of them have been willing to admit that everything is not quite as settled as they would have us believe. Frederic B. Jueneman has acknowledged that "(t)here has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences."

# 7 Furthermore, by definition, Darwinian evolution assumes that all things started out at age zero and then got older. If an evolutionist had been invited to the wedding at Cana, he would have been able to prove to his own satisfaction that the wine served at the end of the wedding banquet was the oldest because it had a finer bouquet and more body than the wine served earlier. (see John 2:1-11) You see, even though as Robert Jastrow informed us, true scientists have discovered that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics to not apply, evolutionistic scientists must of necessity deny the existence of a creator God using forces supposedly no longer at work today. As such, there is no possibility that the evolutionist could accept the 'story' that one of the wedding guests had anything to do with the 'creation' of this fine beverage, even if His name was Jesus. After all, the evolutionist could tell by his five senses that this wine was more than just a few minutes old. Therein lies the problem.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:06:40 AM
Any evolutionist would feel duty bound to find a purely naturalistic explanation for this wine's existence. In the natural realm, wine comes from fermented grape juice. Needless to say, for good wine this process takes a minimum of several months. Therefore, since the evolutionist is compelled by his beliefs to deny God, he would ignore the fact that the jugs in question had been filled with water only moments before the wine appeared. But then that is exactly what evolutionists have been doing since Darwin first proposed his theory. They conveniently overlook facts which they themselves have observed, when those facts interfere with their naturalistic explanations. The evolutionist's prejudice against God is stronger then their desire to find the truth. In short, the problem is not their search for naturalistic explanations which account for the phenomena we observe in the physical world. That after all is what science does. The problem is that evolutionists insist upon naturalistic explanations for all occurrences, even when those explanations cause them to ignore either the observable facts, or the very laws of science which serve as the basis for all scientific inquiry.

An intellectually honest, truth seeking scientist will acknowledge all the facts with which he is faced. When no naturalistic explanation can be postulated which both accounts for these facts and complies with the known laws of nature, he will admit that the occurrence he is investigating cannot be adequately explained by modern science. The occurrence being studied may in fact be supernatural in origin. If it was, than no naturalistic explanation would be correct, no matter how well thought through it was. The theory of evolution losses on both counts. First of all it is incorrect, and secondly, it is not very well thought through.

The evolutionist's absolute prejudice against any supernatural occurrence causes them no end of difficulties. For example, they deny the possibility that any star could have been created with its path of light to earth already established. They assume that since some particular star is a million light years away and we can see it now, then that star must have been in existence for a million light years, otherwise we couldn't see its light. Let me emphasize again that there is no empirical evidence to support such a conclusion. As noted by astrogeophysicist, Dr. John A. Eddy, a solar astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, CO, "There is no evidence based solely on solar observation that the sun is 4.5 - 5 x 10 to the 9th years old." As an evolutionist he admits that all he can do is "... suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion, years old." (emphasis added)

# 8 However, this insistence upon the antiquity of the universe, which the evolutionists have calculated by means of their naturalistic reasoning methods, works against them just as it did in the area of geologic uniformitarianism.

If evolutionists combine this concept of the age of the universe with the projected life expectancy of the sun, they are faced with a real problem. According to astronomers, the universe is expanding. That is to say, the distance between each individual star is actually increasing. However, should this process continue at its present rate for a period of time equal to only one fifth of the estimated remaining life expectancy of our sun, the night sky would be void of stars when you looked up. Why? The distance between each star would have become so great that we would be unable to see them. The Big Dipper would disappear along with Orion the Hunter and all the other constellations. This of course puts the evolutionist in direct conflict with the Scripture which tells us that God created the stars in order to give us light at night. (Gen. 1:17)

Now, while evolutionists could care less about the Bible, they apparently don't like the idea of a dark night sky either. As such, they have made a slight alteration in their uniformitarianism thinking. Some of them will now tell you that obviously the universe must have gone through several periods of both expansion and contraction. In one instance the evolutionist rejects Biblical creation because it requires a miracle and in the next instance he offers up an idea, such as the expansion and contraction of the entire universe, and then expects us to believe that his idea is natural !

Some evolutionists have even gone so far as to use this same reasoning process to explain away the problem presented by the current level of the ocean's salinity (noted earlier). It has been postulated, that given the present rate at which salt is being added to the oceans and their present level of salinity, they could not possibility be more than a fews hundred thousand years old. Since the evolutionists know that the world is at least 4 billion years old, they have come up with an explanation for the present level of the ocean's salinity. Since necessity is the mother of invention,, the theory of salt cycles was developed. What must have happened according to this theory, is that the oceans have gone through several periods whereby salt has alternately been added to and subtracted from the oceans. By some unknown process, salt passed from the oceans back into the continental rock structure - and then back into the oceans. Needless to say, it is maintained that this happened in such a way so that this highly corrosive, readily soluble, migratory compound did not adversely effect the elements which are used for isotope dating from which evolutionists derived the huge numbers which created the necessity for the salt cycle theory in the first place!!! Such reasoning reminds me of a children's nursery rhyme we all know quite well, "Here we go round the mulberry bush." I find it interesting that such theories can be taken seriously by anyone who in one breath denies the existence of a God who has worked in the past using processes supposedly no longer observable today, and then 'exhale' a hypothesis which tells us that that is exactly what his 'science' is doing.

Creationists who accept the Biblical account of the great flood are considered religious zealots in spite of the vast quantity of geologic evidence which exists to support this event.

# 9 While even though no evidence exists to support their notions, evolutionists who propose totally untestable hypothesis' which require an expanding and contracting universe and oceanic salt cycles are considered scientific.

There is still one other hypothesis that evolutionists have proposed which requires more faith than Noah's Ark ever did. Evolutionists have conceded that the fossil record supports the fact that at least 90% of all species of animals, including dinosaurs, suffered from mass extinction.

# 10 In fact many evolutionists now believe that there were as many as 12 mass extinctions. with 5 of them being global in scope.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:10:20 AM
# 11 Since they refuse to accept the idea that the geologic layers which contain the evidence for those extinctions were virtually all laid down as the result of the Biblical great flood, evolutionists must of necessity invent separate causes for the fossils which appear in each of the several distinct layers. How do evolutionists account for the largest of these episodes of mass extinction? By combining the best elements of science fiction with all the power of a disaster movie, the 'science' which first proposed salt cycles now unveils "The Giant Asteroid."

This hypothesis, first presented by Luis and Walter Alverez, goes something like this. A giant asteroid struck the earth, sending a huge cloud of dust and gas into the air. This cloud was so thick that it literally blocked out the sun throughout the entire world for several months. Without adequate sunlight, photosynthesis stopped, thereby killing all the plants. Those dinosaurs which ate the plants died as a result of the loss of their food source. Along with them, the meat eating dinosaurs who consumed the plant eating ones also disappeared. When the dust settled and sunlight returned, new plants sprang up from the seeds in the soil. Any dinosaurs which had somehow managed to survive this process were themselves killed off by the ice age which followed on the heels of the sun blocking dust cloud which, in addition to killing off the plants, cooled the earth's surface.

Since no crater can be found anywhere on or below the earth's land surface which points to an impact of this magnitude, it has been conveniently assumed that this asteroid must have landed in the ocean. But this by no means solves the evolutionist's problems. According to Edward Anders, a cosmochemist at the University of Chicago, "Even if it hit in the ocean, the impact would have created a crater 300 kilometers across..."

# 12 Why so large? Simple, as even Alvarez admits, in order for an asteroid to have done that much damage, it must have been at least 10 kilometers (6 miles) across.

# 13 What's more, it would have had to travel through space at 60 times the speed of sound, and then hit the earth with 10,000 times more power then any of the world's nuclear weapons.

# 14 At the time this book was first published (1993), the biggest crater which can be found anywhere on or under the earth is only 32 kilometers across. As admitted by most scientists though, this is no where near large enough to account for even one single episode of mass extinction.

# 15 Evolutionists who would not accept the Genesis flood as the explanation for the mass extinction they themselves have observed, are now faced with a most interesting paradox. They had no trouble finding the fossils of 6 inch long trilobites who were supposedly killed by Alvarez's asteroid, but they couldn't seem to find the 180 mile wide crater such an impact must have created. Since 1993 proponents of the giant asteroid theory claim that they have found evidence for a crater hundreds of feet beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Even IF such a crater did exist, (and its existence is questioned by many scientists), the asteroid theory fails to account for the fact that many species including "…birds, most mammals, crocodiles, lizards and snakes, turtles, and amphibians sailed right through the catastrophe."

# 16 Furthermore, this far fetched hypothesis totally fails to explain how dinosaurs and vegetation became buried under hundreds, or even thousands of feet of sedimentary rock, thereby enabling these materials to become fossilized. (Remember, things which die and then lie on the surface, or are buried under only a few inches of dust decompose, they do not become fossils.) Unless of course proponents of this theory hold to the position that this meteor impact created a worldwide flood, in which case they should be reminded that the Genesis account of the flood contains more verifiable data than does their 'it came from outer space' theory.

In reality, what these evolutionists have done is base their entire hypothesis upon the fact that the level of iridium found on the earth is higher in some geologic layers than in others. Now, while this is indeed true, it should be pointed out that the highest concentrations of this element are not located on the floors of any ocean, where this asteroid supposedly hit, but in South Africa, Brazil, and Tasmania. Also, according to an article in the Journal of Geological Education, "…most dinosaurian genera and higher taxa were long extinct before the formation of the latest Masstrichtian deposits of Montana, which preserves the only reasonably complete and well studied record of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary on land."

# 17 While the foregoing quote may appear overly technical, I have used it for a very specific reason. You see, it was in the Cretaceous-Tertiary layers that the Alvarez's found the unusually high levels of iridium they used as justification for their asteriod theory. Yet, even Journal of Geologic Education, which is decidedly not creationist in its perspective, viewed the giant asteroid explanation about "as dead as the Cretaceous…" layer because most of the dinosaurs were already gone by the time this iridium rich layer of rock had been laid down.

# 18 However, the foregoing fact is merely one more piece of information which modern evolutionists have forgotten to mention.

Furthermore, to argue that only the impact of a giant asteroid could account for these higher levels is ridiculous. It would make as much sense for me to say that the higher levels of nickel found in some areas of the earth resulted from a collision with the moon simply because the surface of the moon contains a higher level of nickel than is normally found on earth. After all, there is as much geologic evidence to support my notion as there is for Alverez's giant asteroid story. However, I acknowledge that my hypothesis is not scientific; whereas, the evolutionists, by including the asteroid idea as part of their theory, insist that Alverez's notion be treated as scientific. Unfortunately, since 1993 this hypothesis has found its way into virtually every school textbook in America. Not because it has proven to be correct, but simply because it appears to solve the evolutionist's dilemma. Which is, "Why did the dinosaurs disappear all at once.?" I will ask you the same question the editors of the Journal of Geologic Education asked, "are these ad hoc explanations biologically plausible?"

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:12:57 AM
The evolutionists have again offered up a totally untestable hypothesis as part of their science, and in the process have again violated the first rule of true science. Knowingly or unknowingly they have also again called God a liar. If in fact an asteroid-induced 'Nuclear winter' did occur which lasted several years, then God has not only lied to us, but He even lied to Himself. You see, Gen. 8:21-22 tells us that after the flood, God "...said in His heart ... as long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." (emphasis added) This of course does not mean that there will not be local disasters like flooding, drought, or even darkened skies following some volcanic eruption, but God has specifically promised that these will not be world wide.

There are numerous other problems presented by the theory of evolution and its fundamental premise that the lower progresses into the higher, but lack of space prevents me from going into them. The highlights I have presented thus far are however sufficient to point out three things. First, evolution is in direct irreconcilable conflict with the Bible. Neither the Bible nor pure evolutionistic thought allows you to take merely a portion of each and forget the rest. Second, by definition, total evolutionistic thought denies the existence of a creator God. Third, neither the account of the origin of life as found in Genesis, or that postulated by any form of evolutionary theory, is scientific. Both are the account of the creation of the world and man - one from the viewpoint of the Judaeo/Christian religion, and the other from the viewpoint of the religion called Secular Humanism.

From the outset of this study I have made it clear what I believe. I accept creation as a fact. Even if we momentarily set aside all the physical evidence which clearly points to this event, I have the Bible to substantiate my position. Evolutionists accept evolution as a fact and as you can see from what we have discussed so far, they have nothing more than controverted reasoning, misleading statements, faulty assumptions, and outright hoaxes to prove what they believe.

Before continuing any further, please allow me to clear up a misconception which is shared by many people. There is a vast difference between scientific creationism and the Genesis account of creation. The Genesis account of creation describes not only the origin of all things, but tells us who the originator was. Since no one except God was around at the time, no thought process which depends upon human observation and reasoning could explain this event. As such, any discussion concerning the 'origin' of the species is in fact totally beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. As Robert Jastrow so aptly noted, the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid. Origins are in fact supernatural.

On the other hand, scientific creationism, by following established rules of procedure, observation, and experimentation, analyzes the physical evidence which is all around us today in an attempt to explain by what process things change and how both these processes, and the organisms they effect, interrelate with each other. When the facts revealed by this process of examination clearly point towards an act of creation, the creation scientist is willing to admit that in all likelihood, his investigation can go no further and still remain within the bounds of purely scientific inquiry.

The evolutionist however will either deny the very facts which his own investigation has uncovered, or he will misrepresent them. As such, he will continue moving backward in time until he has abandoned all pretext of scientific inquiry. At that point, he will have left the world of true science, and entered into the realm of science fiction - otherwise known as the 'twilight zone' - wherein dwells Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster", Alverez's "Giant Asteroid", and Crick's "intergalactic protein molecule."

While I have not touched upon all the scientific discoveries which clearly demonstrate a special creation, do not make the mistake of thinking that there aren't any. Up to this point in our discussion I have concentrated upon many of the shortcomings of the evolutionist's position. While this will continue to be my general thrust, I would like to highlight merely a few of these discoveries in order to alleviate any fears you may have that there are no truly scientific facts which substantiate the creationist's position. Again, let me reiterate that I am only going to highlight just a few of them. It would take several volumes to do justice to this topic alone, but that is not the intent of this book . Should you wish to delve deeper into the nature of these facts, I suggest that you check the bibliography which appears at the end of this volume.

For now though here is a brief summary of only 5 of those discoveries and the concepts which clearly point to a special creation.


As even acknowledged by the evolutionist Abraham Wolf, former professor and Chairman of the Department of History and Methods of Science at the University of London, this principle shows us the following. One cause can have many effects; however, no effect can be quantitatively greater than, or qualitatively superior to its cause.

# 19 When this principle is applied to the origins of the universe we discover:

1) The first cause of limitless space must be infinite.

2) The first cause of endless time must be eternal.

3) The first cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.

4) The first cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.

5) The first cause of life must be living.

Therefore, the first cause of the universe must be infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and living, which is exactly the position taken by creationists.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:15:26 AM

According to Isaac Asimov, perhaps the best known advocate of the atheistic/humanist/evolutionistic position before his death, the First Law of Thermodynamics can be summarized as follows: "The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant." He continues his definition by noting that this law " considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make... (I)n over a century and a quarter of careful measurements scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of energy conservation."

# 20 Using the evolutionist's own definition for this law we arrive at a most interesting conclusion. Since the quantity of energy has never been more or less than it is today, the universe must have come into existence with its level of energy already in place. This speaks not of gradual development, but of a moment of creation.


Again quoting Asimov, the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed as follows, "The universe is constantly getting more disorderly."

# 21 From this fact we therefore know that the amount of energy available for use grows smaller with each passing day, even though the quantity of energy throughout the universe remains constant. Just as a watch spring which is half run down was once fully wound, so also must there have been a moment in the past when every bit of that quantity of universal energy was also available for use. That moment was at its point of creation.


As you may recall from our earlier discussion, Louis Pasteur proved by experimentation that the very premise of spontaneous generation was false. Furthermore, assuming that living matter is greater than non-living matter, the Principle of Universal Causation also falsifies this premise. Not only must evolutionists overcome these two problems, but recent discoveries concerning the genetic code have thrown a major monkey wrench into their works. In fact, after being faced with proof that a genetic code of some type is found in all living organisms, even the confirmed evolutionist Leslie Orgel acknowledged in 1982 that "the origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the origins of life."

# 22 The reason that the evolutionists have such difficulty with this code is the discovery that the genetic information which is found in an organism is itself specified by the genetic code of that organism's parents. In other words, there is no other means by which it can be transmitted or received by the organism in which it is found other than by inheritance.

Furthermore, Sir Fred Hoyle, the noted British evolutionistic astronomer calculated the odds which had to be overcome in order for the first self reproducible protein to arise by chance from the primordial soup which evolutionists assume covered the earth billions of years ago. Those odds were one in ten to the forty thousandth power. That's 10 followed by 40,000 zeros! Because of the mathematical impossibility of this event taking place on earth by chance, Hoyle joined forces with Francis Crick in assuming that life must have evolved in some other portion of the universe where conditions were presumably more favorable and then traveled to earth by some unknown means.

# 23 The point is, these recent discoveries concerning the genetic code tell us that some type of code was in the first representative of each of the original species on the earth. Since it could only be placed there through inheritance, it must have been placed their by a living creator.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:18:12 AM

Every valid scientific theory must of necessity, be able to suggest what some future researcher should discover as he continues his investigations. The theory of creation has been in existence longer than has the intellectual exercise we call 'science'. From its very beginnings however, creation has made numerous predictions which have now been discovered to be completely accurate. The facts of the fossil record and the laws of mathematical probability which we have discussed in other sections of this book, have all verified the following points:

1) The theory of creation suggested that distinct and complex organisms would appear in the fossil record without leaving any record of fossilized ancestors.

2) The theory of creation suggested that basic categories of plants and animals would be widely distributed even at the point where they first appeared in the fossil record.

3) The theory of creation suggested that living organisms are far to complex to be the mere product of random selection.

4) The theory of creation suggested that mutations and microevolutionary changes would be neutral, harmful, or ‚ degenerative in their effect.

To the truth seeking intellectually honest scientist, the discoveries we have looked at in this section are exactly what they purport to be; namely, the results of scientific research which clearly points to a special creation. According to Robert Jastrow however, facts such as these place the evolutionists in the middle of the following bad dream. The evolutionist has "... scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

# 24 However, since most evolutionists don't like either bad dreams or evangelical theologians they simply ignore the facts we have just examined. Rather than acknowledge their error, they willingly go back down the mountain of ignorance into the valley of the absurd. They have chosen instead to walk along the path of the preposterous where they are joined by their hiking companions, Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.


1) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), Back Cover

2) ibid p. 98

3) David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism", The Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History Vol. 54, (March 1983) , p 21

4) Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956 ed, Vol 10, p. 168,.)

5) J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science Vol 276, (January 1976), pp.47 & 53

6) David C. C. Watson - The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press 1976), p. 120

7) Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development Vol. 24 (June 1982), p. 21

8 ) R. G. Kazman, "Its About Time: 4.5 Billion Years", Geotimes Vol. 23, (Sept. 1978 ), p. 18

9) John C. Whitcomb - The World That Perished, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988 ) see also Whitcomb & Morris, The Genesis Flood, (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), p. 182

10) Niles Eldredge - Time Frames: Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equillibria (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), p. 106

11) Rick Gore, "Extinctions", National Geographic Vol. 175, (June 1968 ), p. 664

12) ibid p. 673

13) ibid p. 673

14) ibid p. 673; see also Scott Stuckey, "Mysteries of the Dinosaurs", Boy's Life (June 1989), p. 20

15) ibid p. 673

16) Kevin Padian, "New Discoveries about Dinosaurs: Separating the fact From the News", Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 36 (1988 ), p. 215

17) ibid p. 215

18 ) ibid p. 215

19) Henry M. Morris - The Biblical Basis For Mordern Science (Grnad Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984) p. 37

20) Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics, You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Vol. 1 No. 5 (June 1970) , p. 6

21) ibid p. 10

22) Lesile Orgel, "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life" New Scientist, Vol. 94, (April 15, 1982), p. 151

23) Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Where Microbes Boldly Went", New Scientist Vol. 91, (1981), pp. 412-415

24) Robert Jastrow, "God and Astronomers", as reported in David Bender and Bruno Leons - Science and Religion: Opposing Viewpoints (St Paul ,MN: Green Haven Press, 1981), p. 50

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:33:20 AM
Chapter VI
Holy Hydrogen and Hitler

Why would seemingly intelligent people accept such a theory? Secular humanism absolutely requires that they do so. If the theory of evolution is correct, then man is slowly evolving into a better and higher state and is therefore not in need of a personal Saviour to redeem him. Just in case you think that I may have misinterpreted the evolutionist's position on this issue, allow me to call your attention to Richard Leakey's comments concerning the source of aggression in mankind. "Any aggression we show is the product of our culture and environment, not our nature." (emphasis added)

# 1 In fact, the entire premise of Leakey's book The People of the Lake is that the driving force which transformed apes into humans is the natural sense of goodness and cooperation which existed amongst man's supposed ancestors. He believes that this natural tendency to cooperate somehow caused our ancestor's brains to enlarge as they were forced to cope with the increasingly complex society such cooperation fostered.

Since humanistic evolutionists maintain that man has no original sin, they take the further position that "salvation based upon mere affirmation" in the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ is in reality a destructive philosophy which diverts man's attention from his true source of power. They hold to the belief that instead of looking to God, "reasonable minds look to other means for survival."

# 2 Sir Julian Huxley, founder of the American Humanist Association spelled out in no uncertain terms just where it is that mankind must now look when he said, " not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being... but has to rely on himself and his own powers."

# 3 On the other hand, if the Bible is correct, then man is not evolving, but has in fact gone from a state of perfection to one of sin and degradation from which he cannot be rescued except by the blood of Jesus Christ. Satan has come to kill, steal, and destroy. (John 10:10) As we have so clearly seen up to this point, he has skillfully used the tools of his trade to get many people to believe his theory. I am aware that this is a rather forceful statement, but in reality, the topic we are dealing with is that of life and death.

Let's put it this way. If you were an astronaut about to take a ride on a Saturn IV rocket, how would you feel if you overheard one of the scientists who designed a major component of that rocket tell his colleagues that the design he came up with for that part had not been completely tested, or for that matter, even thoroughly thought through? Do you think that you would still be willing to put your life in his hands? I believe the intelligent answer to that question has to be "No!" However, when you accept the theory of evolution you are taking a much more dangerous ride. In the process you are putting more than your physical life on the line. Whether you know it or not, you may very well be placing your soul in the hands of just such 'scientists.'

By stating on in his book that "...the gloves are off," Eldredge acknowledges that the battle line has been drawn between creationists and evolutionists.

# 4 Unfortunately, the evolutionists have been very successful up to this point in claiming victims. All you have to do is turn to the supplementary volume to the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (pages 792 - 793 of the 1976 hardbound edition) to see the inroads that evolution has made into liberal theology. When the liberal theologian assumes that scientific knowledge has rendered belief in the miracle of creation intellectually irresponsible, he is in reality saying that science provides us with knowledge of the limits within which God will always operate. Such a theologian has inadvertently made a god out of scientific knowledge. If in fact an Almighty God does exist, then miracles are generally possible at every moment.

Make no mistake about it, evolution is a religious belief. Of course most evolutionists would deny this, but as we have done before in this study, let's take a closer look at what evolutionists have actually said.

# 5 Concerning the teaching of the Genesis account of creation in science classes (something which I am not advocating, as long as evolution, is not taught there) Eldredge says, "Students should not be asked to believe, but they should be taught those things, such as evolution, that scientists THINK are true of the natural universe." (Capitalization mine, other emphasis his)

# 6 Roget's College Thesaurus says that a synonym for the word believe is the word think. The American College Dictionary, 1960 ed. includes in its definitions for the word think, the following: To hold as an opinion: believe: suppose." (emphasis added)

Since Eldredge maintains that his science is not a "belief system," why then does he use words which are interchangeable such as think and believe?

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:36:26 AM
# 7 Why not use the word, "that scientists know are true of the natural universe?" The reason of course is that no true scientist would claim to "know" the reason for the sudden appearance of the multicellular life forms which are found in Cambrian Rock, much less the origins of the universe. (Remember, even Eldredge admits that the appearance of Cambrian life forms is a mystery to his brand of science.) Therefore, he is correct in saying that evolutionistic scientists can only talk about what they think (ie. what they believe) about the natural universe, and belief requires faith. It takes more faith to accept the notion that the undeniable order and symmetry which exists throughout the entire universe is a matter of sheer chance than it does to believe that it came about through the direct action of the Most High God.

Ps. 14:1 tells us that "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" While evolutionists are deceived, I would not call them fools. As such, they do have a god. To discover who their god is, we have to travel back in time about 3,000 years. Ancient Greek philosophy developed its own theory for the origins of all creatures. Around 100 B.C., a Roman poet named Lucretius set portions of his theory, which he had borrowed from the Greeks, to rhyme and lyric in order to make it more presentable to the average person of his day. Lucretius was cited approvingly by Professor Sir Gavin deBeer in his biology textbook Adaption when he says, "Chance was exactly what Lucretius invoked .... to explain living creatures."

# 8 Professor deBeer is correct in noting that Lucretius "invoked" chance. To invoke is to "call on a divine being" (American College Dictionary 1960), and it is their "divine being - Chance" that evolutionists call upon. Evolutionists would have us believe that Cecil Alexander's beautiful poem should now read, "All things bright and beautiful, All things great and small, All things wise and wonderful, the lord CHANCE made them all" instead of the "Lord God made them all." Over the centuries, believers in the chance development of the universe and life as we know it, have dressed up their notion in order to accommodate what they perceived as man's increasing sophistication. They no longer use poetry to express this belief in "lord chance", now they call it "evolutionistic science."

Harlow Shapely, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Harvard University expressed his evolutionistic fervor in this manner,

Formerly the origin of life was held to be a matter for the Deity to take care of ... But no longer. We now believe that all of the score of kinds of atoms evolved naturally from hydrogen... To me it (evolution) is a religious attitude to recognize the wonder of the whole natural world. Not only life ... why not revere also amino acids and the simple proteins from which life emerges. (parenthesis & emphasis added)

# 9 Not only have evolutionists crossed the line from science to religion, but Professor Shapley totally ignored the admonition of Deut. 4:19 which tells us that "... when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon, and stars - all the heavenly array - do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshipping things the Lord you God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven." As noted in the New Testament, "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30) As I said earlier, this is a matter of life and death.

The evolutionists have replaced the God of creation with the 'creation god', and it is for them that Ro, 12:1 comes into clear focus.

"For although they knew God they neither glorified Him as God, nor gave thanks to Him, but in their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise they became fools... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever to be praised."

Evolutionists may tell you that evolution is not a religious belief, but to put it in Shakespearean terms, "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Again though, there are at least a few brave evolutionists out there who are sheepishly willing to admit the fact that 'evolutionistic science' has all the makings of a religious movement. Anthropology professor Dr. Loren Eisley noted that he and fellow evolutionists were:

...left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which (they) could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past. (parenthesis & emphasis added)

# 10 Publicly however, most evolutionists hold to the position that belief in a God who created all things requires an illogical leap of faith; whereas, according to them, salt cycles, giant asteroids, and an expanding and contracting universe constitute scientific principles which have nothing to do with faith. They have assured us that theirs is not a religious belief system, when in reality they cling to their beliefs as tenaciously as any cult member ever has. Instead of humbling themselves before the altar of repentance, they stand proudly before the altar of human reason. They have exchanged the supernatural Lord of the universe for the more natural universal law of chance. They have traded the miraculous account of life's inception for a more 'naturalistic', though now thoroughly discounted concept called 'spontaneous generation.' They put their faith not in Jesus Christ, the Rock of our Salvation, but in the rocks of the geologic column. They have substituted the god of me, myself, and I for the One True God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They have abandoned the Apostles Creed, instead favoring the Humanist Manifestos I and II. Finally, they have guided their lives not by the absolute standards of God's Word, but by the self-contradictory standard which assures us that there are absolutely no absolutes.

In an unsuccessful attempt to place as much distance as possible between the whole issue of religious morals and the theory of evolution, some evolutionists state that they cannot even begin to comprehend "... (how) the ethical fabric of human social behavior is dependent upon one scenario or another about how we humans got here in the first place." (parenthesis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:39:14 AM
#11 In one very limited sense he may be right, but not for the reasons he thinks. The philosophy of evolutionistic humanism is in fact devoid of morals and ethics. Not because there is no relationship between the topic of evolution and the topic of ethics, but because the philosophical foundations of evolution are totally incapable of supporting any system of moral values. Before examining some very concrete examples of evolution's direct relationship to such things as genocide and racism, allow me to point out the predicament which evolutionistic humanists have created for themselves. In so doing, I believe that you will see why it is that their philosophy leads to a total absence of moral values.

Many evolutionistic humanists regard the universe as a self-existing non-created entity.

# 12 Carl Sagan even went so far as to state that "The cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be."

# 13 The Humanist Manifestos go on to tell us that "... faith in (a) prayer hearing God ... (who is) able to do something about them (prayers) is ... outmoded." Not only that, but these documents maintain the position that the entire concept of salvation is "... harmful (because it offers people)... false hopes of heaven." parenthesis added)

# 14 This view of life causes these same evolutionists to now confidently state that "God has no role in the physical world... there is no organizing principle in the world and no purpose. Thus, there are no moral or ethical laws that belong to the nature of things no absolute guiding principles for human society. (emphasis added)

# 15 Needless to say, evolutionistic humanism has not only removed God from the realm of creation, but it has removed Him from all human endeavors. Here then is the crux of their self imposed problem. Noted humanist historians, Will and Ariel Durant, the 1976 recipients of The Humanist "Humanist Pioneer Award", have acknowledged that as humanists they "...shall find it no easy task to mold a natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social order without the support of supernatural consolations, hopes, and fears."

# 16 There task however is not only difficult, I dare say it is impossible.

As historians, all they need to do is examine the aftermath of the French Revolution to see the total breakdown which occurs in a society when it attempts to live by the type of humanistic rationale expounded by today's evolutionists. For that matter, all they need do is to contemplate their own findings which were, "There is no significant example in history ... of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."

# 17 If we can find a lesson at all in what history tells us, it is this: Every society which is based upon the philosophy of evolutionistic humanism is bound to ultimately fail because of this philosophy's internal cancer. That cancer is an absence of viable moral values and ethical standards. Such a cancer eats away at the very foundations upon which society must be based if it is going to survive.

Our forefathers had no difficulty realizing that atheistic humanism could never serve as the foundation for a system of moral values which requires absolutes. Daniel Webster noted that:

...our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any foundation other than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits... Let the religious element in man's nature be neglected, let him be influenced by no higher motives than low self-interest, and subjected to no stronger restraint than the limits of civil authority and he becomes the creature of selfish passion and blind fanaticism... On the other hand, the cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness... inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric at the same time that it conducts the human soul upward to the Author of its being.

# 18 Not only is humanistic philosophy incapable of supporting a system of‚absolute moral values, but it was because of this very inability that humanistic evolution caught on so quickly. When asked to give his opinion as to why it was that the notion of evolution was so readily accepted by certain segments of society, Sir Julian Huxley noted that "... the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

# 19 It would appear that just about everyone from our founding fathers to modern day humanistic historians have observed the chilling effect which evolutionistic humanism has upon morals and ethics. But Eldredge appears to give no credence to these facts. Not only does he fail to make the apparently obvious correlation between the two, he even appears make light of Mrs. Nell Segraves for her statement that there is a relationship between drug abuse, prostitution, and other criminal activity and the teaching of evolution.

Mrs. Seagraves is the mother of the plaintiff in what became known as the "Scopes II trial". Obviously, she has taken the time to think about the logical consequences which follow from the evolutionist's line of reasoning, even if some evolutionists have not. Of what value are the virtues we know as love, charity, friendship, self sacrifice, and loyalty? Such sentiments are nothing more than a cruel joke in a system wherein the only true reality is the survival of the fittest. If man is in fact the product of mere chance, having evolved along with the apes, the fish, the birds, and the reptiles; then his claim to life is no more secure than theirs. After all, doesn't a cattle breeder "cull" his herd to eliminate unwanted strains? As such, abortion is completely justified under this system because all that is being eliminated is 'a blob of tissue' or an 'unwanted animal' that posses nothing more than the potential to be human. But then this system of thought does not discriminate, for it also allows for the killing off of the elderly and the mentally ill. In fact, it provided all the justification needed to kill off an entire race of people.

Hitler was an evolutionist, and he used this exact same line of reasoning to eliminate 6 million human beings whom he considered genetically inferior to his master race.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:42:29 AM
# 20 Noted British commentator Benjamin Kidd stated that in Germany prior to world War II, "Darwin's theories came to be openly set out in political and military textbooks as the full justification for war and highly organized schemes of national policy in which the doctrine of force became the doctrine of right."

# 21 Without a doubt, Hitler had no difficulty recognizing the point that the "ethical principle inherent in evolution is that only the best has a right to survive."

# 22 But then Hitler was not the only one to hold to such a perverted view of humanity.

As a boy, Joseph Stalin shared a book he had recently discovered with a young friend of his. He assured his friend that this book would show him that "... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense."

# 23 That book was Darwin's Origin of the Species. It was the philosophy of evolution which Stalin used to justify the brutal imprisonment and murder of more than 4 million Russians. Stalin's actions though were themselves merely the culmination of Lenin's beliefs which he expressed thusly, "Darwin put an end to the belief that animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another."

# 24 Just as you discard an imperfect tomato from your garden, so also have the communists 'discarded' untold millions of their own people who did not meet their standards of perfection.

Needless to say, in order for communist political systems to not only sanction these types of internal extermination programs, but actually plan them and then carry them out, their philosophical viewpoint must be devoid of any moral standards. They found justification for their position in the writings of Charles Darwin. While you may think that I am stretching things just a bit, I can assure you that I am not. All you need do is examine the facts. On December 12, 1859 Frederick Engles wrote to Karl Marx advising him that "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." Marx must have wholeheartedly agreed, for on December 16, 1860, he advised Engles that "... I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book of Natural Selection… this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view. (emphasis added)

# 25 While some evolutionists would have you believe that the 'social Darwinism' of Hitler, Stalin, Marx, and Engles was an outdated perversion of true evolutionistic thinking, I urge you to consider that its underlying thought process is alive and well today. Edward O Wilson's book Sociobiology is filled with it. As reported in the March 13, 1989 issue of Newsweek Wilson's basic premise is that man's "... social behavior is shaped by the Darwinian struggle to survive and reproduce."

# 26 While some evolutionists are upset that such ideas are again being openly discussed, their protests have had no effect. The rationale behind the social Darwinism of the 30's and 40's hasn't changed at all. The only difference between then and now is that different words are being used today to express the very same thoughts expressed by Hitler and Stalin.

Today Darwin's theory marches on, and as a consequence of the total lack of value it places upon human life, more than 2 million Cambodians were murdered under the regime of Pol Pott. Just as horribly though, more than 20 million American babies have been murdered in its abortion mills because too many Americans have come to believe that we are mere animals as opposed to being created in the image of Almighty God.

In addition to the relationship between the theory of evolution and genocide, Mrs. Seagrave also clearly understands the relationship between evolutionary thinking and racism. Even Niles Eldredge's colleague, Stephen Jay Gould has acknowledged that "(b)iological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." (emphasis added)

# 27 Just how blatant this racism may have become is found in a quote from the late Henry Fairfield Osborn, the evolutionistic professor of Biology at Columbia University and past President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees whom we mentioned earlier in regards to our discussion of the Nebraska Man. He stated that:

The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian ... as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics ... but of the instincts, (and) the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven year old youth of the species Homo Sapiens.

# 28 Rather than acknowledge that there is a definite link between the evils we have just discussed and the evolutionary thought process (which by definition excludes God), the best that Eldredge could do is raise another red herring. He states that,

"... it is surely an irony that the Old Testament amply documents the presence of many of the same social ills (and plenty more) plaguing Jewish society thousands of years ago, yet nothing is said about their teaching evolution to their children."

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:46:18 AM
# 29 Unfortunately for him though, this illustration serves only to prove my point. You see, if Mr. Eldredge had examined the Old Testament a little more closely, he would have discovered that the kingdom of Israel (both its northern and southern portions) suffered from these evils when and only when it abandoned the truth's of God's Word and followed the false gods of its neighbors.

The problem of course is not evolution per se. Evolution is merely a symptom of the sickness, not the disease itself. Quite simply put, where God is absent, evil rushes in to fill the vacuum. Since evolution is the foundational teaching upon which humanism must rest, and humanism absolutely and unquestionably denies God, then it follows logically that where evolution and humanism are believed; crime, genocide, abortion, and other evils reign supreme. And that is exactly the point Mrs. Seagrave was making.

Obviously she clearly understands the relationship between the amoral teachings and situational ethics of humanism, and the theory of evolution. For this she is held in disdain by a man who says that he cannot understand how ethics and evolution are related; yet who himself says, "Creationism seems to me to threaten the integrity of our children's education, and this threatens the long term well being of our country."

# 30 Having previously defined creationism in his book Monkey Business as "creationism -the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all life are separate acts of a supernatural creator", I can only assume that he feels that by teaching our children that God's Word, as recorded in the entire Bible is true, we are threatening the future of the United States of America.

Yet look at what the evolutionists have to offer us instead - "Scientists ... (who) are in no position to 'prove anything' ..." and a system which, by their own admission "... can never claim to know the ultimate truth." (parenthesis added)

# 31 Evolutionists claim on one hand to be truth seeking scientist, and on the other that "no one has yet invented a way of determining what the truth is when we have it."

# 32 Perhaps it is because of statements such as these that Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum, who is reexamining his own position on evolution, has come to the conclusion that "...evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."

# 33 To me it is interesting how evolutionists can ignore or simply forget past statements made by their heros when those comments now point out their own intellectual shortcomings. For example, in all his discussion about the teaching of creationism, Eldredge never once mentions the fact that Clarence Darrow, the ACLU attorney who represented the evolutionists' position in the original Scopes trial, stated that it is the height of "bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins."

#34 Even Darwin acknowledged that "(a) fair result can be obtained only by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question..."

# 35 Since most evolutionists clearly insist that only evolution be taught to today's students, they have, by their own words, placed themselves in a position which Darrow classified as bigoted, and Darwin contended was unfair.

The evolutionist's own statements regarding what science is point out yet another area which contradicts the 'simple to complex' premise of evolution. This area deals with the development of language itself. Evolution would tell us that man could barely speak when he first appeared. He then slowly evolved into the supposedly highly articulate intellectually superior evolutionists which we see today. Yet, linguistic research has shown that there is " tribe or people anywhere in the world which does not have thousands of words in its vocabulary and an intricate systematic way of putting words together into phrases and sentences."

# 36 What we find when we examine supposedly primitive tribes is that even their language, which appears rather simple at first glance, is in fact more often than not, the remains of a more intricate complex pattern of speech which that tribe's ancestors used. The words and phrases of the past civilization have been dropped as the functions disappeared from that particular culture which those words described.

# 37 Again, we see the breakdown of something, not its evolution. The evidence simply does not establish a general pattern of simple to complex. While it is true that new words may be coined to define new ideas or inventions, it is also true that taken as a whole, the language in which this occurs, actually becomes less complex at the same time. English is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

In addition, linguists have also discovered that there is no evidence of any common source or historical connection between any of the 50 distinct families of languages which exist in the world today. Remember, this is in spite of the fact that it has been demonstrated that man has had a single place of origin. The fact that no common link exists between these families of languages tends to support not the theory of evolution, but the Biblical account of Genesis chapter 11 wherein we are shown that God totally confused the languages of the world at the Tower of Babel.

The process of language deterioration continues on to this day. We need look no further than the "Science of Evolution" to establish this principle. When I was in school I was taught that science was the study of natural phenomena. Possible explanations for the occurrence of these phenomena were proposed as hypotheses. After initial testing appeared to verify the hypothesis, it was upgraded to the status of theory. After years of testing by men of science throughout the world using universally accepted procedures, and finding no exceptions to the theory, it was called a fact. My American College Dictionary still carries these different definitions. Eldredge however states that "philosophers of science have argued long and hard over the difference between facts, hypothesis, and theories. But the real point is this: they are all essentially the same, all of them are ideas...." (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:49:20 AM
# 38 As we have so graphically seen, the evolutionists have completely altered the idea of what the truth is, something every humanist must do in order to justify the situational ethics he expounds. Now, they are diluting the very language which serves as the basis for modern science. Having diluted the language of science to nothing more than a series of meaningless interchangeable words (which after all is exactly what the deterioration of language does), evolutionists now feel secure in making the following statement: "... (T)he earth simply cannot be a mere ten thousand years old. This is no story concocted by a Creator as part of his creation process. The earth really is incredibly old. And of course the universe is even older - 15 billion years or so."

# 39 They can also readily assert that "precious few ideas put forth to date in science have entirely withstood the test of time. Evolution is one, so is the idea that the earth is round... Evolution is a fact as much as the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball."

# 40 When language begins to deteriorate, as the evidence shows that it has, it is a mixed blessing. In this case it serves as additional proof that Darwinian evolution did not occur. However, by using their watered down definition for the word 'fact', the evolutionist feels perfectly free in calling evolution a fact. In reality, Darwinian evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis, and a philosophical one at that.

The evolutionist's attack on the English language goes even further. After making such a preposterous statement as "evolution is a fact as much as the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball," Eldredge attempts to give the impression of impartiality. He does so by asserting that "the notion of evolution is falsifiable - we can theoretically throw it out should evidence one day point that way." (emphasis added)

# 41 This statement is misleading because it conceals the fact that as far as he is concerned, there is no way evolution could be proven false. By equating the roundness of the earth with the theory of evolution, he has pointed out the total inflexibility of his mind set. (Remember, it was this same type of inflexibility which led his predecessors to make false statements concerning the lack of transitional evidence in the fossil record.)

Eldredge's statements however serve as further evidence of the watering down of scientific terms. As we saw previously, he felt no hesitancy about interchanging the words hypothesis and theory with the word fact, but now he does the same thing with the word notion and fact. First we are told that evolution is a fact, and then we are told that it is a notion. Returning to my dictionary for a moment, I discover that a notion is a "more or less general, vague, imperfect conception or idea of something ... an opinion, view, or belief." If Mr. Eldredge would accept the dictionary definition of the word notion, then I would acknowledge evolution as a notion, for it most certainly is an imperfect conception of the origins of the species which requires a great deal of belief.

1) Thomas Goldthwaite, "Television", Arizona Repbublic, (November 23, 1983)

2) Humanist Manifesto I & II (New York: Promethas Books, 1973) p. 8

3) Henry M. Morris - The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984) . p. 36

4) Niles Eldredge - Monkey Business - A Scientist Looks at Creationism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982) p. 24

5) ibid p. 146

6) ibid p. 147

7) ibid p. 32

8 ) David C.C Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press 1976) p. 98

9) ibid p. 43

10) Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey (New York: Random House, 1957) p.199

11) Eldredge - op cit. p. 143

12) Humanist Manifesto, op cit. p. 8

13) Carl Sagan, "Cosmos", University of Chicago Magazine, Vol 73 (Spring 1981), p. 11

14) Humanist Manifesto, op cit. p. 13

15) Francis Schaeffer - The Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981) p. 58

16) ibid p. 45

17) ibid p. 45; also Will and Ariel Durant - The Lessons of History, (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1968 ) p. 15-

18 ) Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America, (St Davids, PA: The Arthur S DeMoss Foundation, 1986) p.21,29

19) Kennedy, D. James, Broadcast WAND TV Channel 17, 9/15/91

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 08:51:00 AM
20) Adolf Hitler - Mein Kamf, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1943 ed) pp. 286, 295, 325, 402, 403, 285, 289, see also "The Ascent of Racism" Impact, Vol 16, (February 1987), p. I

21) Stephen Jay Gould, "William Jenning Bryan's Last Campaign", Natural History, Vol.96 (November 1987), pp. 22-24

22) Henry Fairfield Osborn - Evolution and Religion, (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1923) p. 48

23) E. Yaroslavsky - Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1940) pp. 8-12 as reported in Impact, Vol 16 No 10 October, (1987), p. I

24) Eduardo del Rio, Marx for Beginners, ( New York:Pantheon Books, 1976) Glossary

25) Conway Zirkle - Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene ( Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959) pp. 85-87

26) Geoffrey Crowley, "How the Mind was Designed," Newsweek, Vol 113 No 11 (1989) p.56

27) Stephen Jay Gould - Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977) p. 127

28 ) Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of Human Races", Natural History Vol.89 (April 1980), p. 129

29) Eldredge - op cit. p. 145

30) ibid p. 16

31) ibid pp. 18, 78,

32) ibid p 85

33) Wendell R. Bird, "More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists", Impact Vol 17 No. 2 (February 1988 ), p. 1

34) Eldredge - op cit. p. 14; also Flood, op cit. p. 81

35) Charles Darwin, "Introduction" Origin Of Species (London: John Murry, Albermarie Street, 1859), as quoted in "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times (February 8, 1984) p. 2,

36) Watson, op cit. p. 84

37) ibid p. 85

38 ) Eldredge - op cit. p. 29

39) ibid p. 104

40) ibid pp. 22,31-32

41) ibid p. 22

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:06:59 AM
Chapter VII
Higher Education

This country may well be in jeopardy of destruction from within. However, that situation has arisen, not from teaching the truths of God's Word, but from our failure to insist that our educational system continue to do that which it had done from its very inception.

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from - vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war - proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

# 1 That quote comes not from Mrs. Seagrave, but from Noah Webster in 1828.

While evolutionists will tell you that they accept the Biblical precepts of moral goodness, I remind you that nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to believe only that part of it which we want - and reject the rest. Among the precepts contained in the Bible is the unquestionable integrity of God's Word. Perhaps I should not us the word 'unquestionable', for there can be no doubt that evolution in particular and secular humanism in general has done exactly that. In addition to calling the Genesis account of creation a "concoction", at least one prominent evolutionists refers to this integrity as nothing more than "... the wisdom and world view of a near eastern culture thousands of years old."

# 2 While evolutionists are indeed entitled to their own opinion of the Bible, I wonder if they is aware of the fact that their opinions runs contrary to those held by the very men who have shaped this country? John Quincy Adams said that, " The first and almost the only book deserving of universal attention is the Bible." Andrew Jackson was of the opinion that, "(T)he Scriptures (form) ... the rock on which our Republic rests." U.S. Grant observed that,"The Bible is the sheet anchor of our liberties." Horace Greely even went so far as to publicly state that, "It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially, a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom." Woodrow Wilson viewed the Bible as "... the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God and spiritual nature, and the needs of men." Concerning the future stability of this country and that stability's relationship to the Bible, Calvin Coolidge spoke in words which even an evolutionist could not misconstrue. "The foundation of our society and our government rests so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

# 3 We are told in II Chron 7:14 that "...(I)f My people... will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and will heal the land." God's promise to heal the land though, is conditional in nature. Before the healing process can begin, we must humble ourselves, pray, and seek God's face. Even though evolutionists refuse to recognize this fact, it was common knowledge amongst our nation's greatest leaders.

While I wish I could claim to be the author of the following words, all I can do is repeat them for you and allow you to ponder them in your heart:

We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserves us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; as we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace; too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended power to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. (emphasis added)

Those words are taken from the "Presidential Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day." The President who made this proclamation was Abraham Lincoln on March 30, 1863.

# 4 After the Civil War, Robert E. Lee echoed the thoughts of his former adversary with these words: "... Knowing that intercessory prayer is our mightiest weapon and the supreme call for all Christians today...(l)et us pray for our nation... for those who have never known Jesus Christ ... for our nation's leaders... Let prayer be our passion. Let prayer be our practice."

# 5 Again, the very premise of the evolutionist is false. Our national tragedy is not the fact that more and more Americans are insisting that God's Word be taught as true, but that we ever allowed something (evolution) which calls itself science (when in reality it is merely another religion) to ever take the place of God's Word in the first place. Allow me to point out the observation of Mr. Charles Malik, a former President of the United Nations General Assembly, which came from a conversation he had with the then U.S. Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance. In response to a question as to what was wrong with the United States, Mr. Malik stated that, "You have taken Jesus Christ our of your universities."

# 6 It is not the fact that many people are desirous of having their children taught the truths of God's Word which has seriously eroded the moral fabric of this country; it is the fact that the educational system of this country has forgotten the very admonition of the founders of such great universities as Harvard, which directed its students to "...know God and Jesus Christ ... as the only foundation for all sound knowledge and learning."

# 7 Our system of education has failed to live up to the purpose for which institutions of higher education such as Columbia University were created; that is, "To teach and encourage students to know God in Jesus Christ and to love and serve Him... with a perfect and willing mind."

# 8 We have lost track of the fact that major universities such as Yale were once described as "... a little temple (where) prayer and praise seem to be the delight of the greater part of the students." (parenthesis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:09:50 AM
# 9 As a nation we have forgotten the fact that of the first 119 colleges and universities founded in the United States, 104 of them were created for the purpose of teaching their students about the Creator and his creations.

# 10 In fact, the Bible was considered such an integral part of our educational heritage that Noah Webster was merely expressing a commonly accepted fact when he said, "... education is useless without the Bible."

# 11 We must never forget that Fisher Ames, the founding father who actually wrote the First Amendment, expressed his belief that the Bible was to play a prominent role in public education when he said:

It has been the custom of late years to put a number of little books into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. Why then, if these books for children must be retained,… should not the bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus impressed lasts long… (T)he bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as faith.

# 12 We must never forget that when he was President, Thomas Jefferson also served as Superintendent of Schools for Washington, D.C., and that as Superintendent he declared that the Bible was to be the primary reading text for its students.

# 13 We must never forget that Congress also recognized the importance of religion in American educational life when, in 1787 and again in 1789, under the terms of the Northwest Ordinance, it set aside FEDERAL land for schools using the following rationale:

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged. (emphasis added)

Note also that this was at a time when the vast majority of all schools in the United States were Church run. Furthermore, no portion of the Northwest territories could apply for statehood if its proposed constitution prohibited the teaching of religion and morality in its public schools. Remember also that the Congress which passed the Northwest Ordinance was the very same Congress which passed the First Amendment.

We must not forget that the preamble to one of the earliest public education laws in the colonies stated in 1647 that the purpose of education was primarily spiritual when it acknowledged that:

... it being one chief project of ... Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of ye Scriptures ... (people must be certain) ... that learning may not be buried in ye grave. (parenthesis added)

# 14 We must not forget that some of our colonial ancestor's concepts concerning education were formed by reading the works of such men as John Locke, who made the following statement:

There ought very early to be imprinted on his (a child's) mind a true notion of God, as the independent Supreme Being, Author and Maker of all things, from whom we receive all our good, and who loves and gives us all things... (T)he Lord's prayer, the creeds, and Ten Commandments, tis necessary he should learn perfectly by heart. (parenthesis added)

# 15 We must not forget that the philosophy of education shared by our founding fathers was best summed up by Samuel Adams on October 4, 1790, when he said:

Let divines and philosophers, statesmen, and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy... In short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.

# 16 We must not forget that this educational system (mostly Church sponsored) was apparently quite successful, for John Adams noted in 1765 that: (A) native of America who cannot read or write is as rare as a comet or an earthquake.

# 17 We must not forget that this remained the case well into the 19th century, when it was noted by the French historian Alexis de Toquville in 1848 that:

America is still the place where the Christian religion has kept the greatest real power over men's souls, nothing better demonstrates how useful and natural it is to men, since the country where it now has the widest sway is both the most enlightened and the freest. (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:12:09 AM
# 18 We must not forget that the New England Primer, America's first textbook, taught the ABC's to our children using these examples:

A In Adam's fall we sinned all

B Heaven to find, the Bible mind

C Christ crucify'd for sinners dy'd

# 19 We must not forget that McGuffey's readers, which were used to teach 120 million Americans to read, contained this statement: The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ are not only basic, but plenary...

# 20 All this clearly serves to show us that it is not the fact that religion is being taught in our public schools that has brought us to the state we are in, it is the fact that we have exchanged the God of our forefathers for the religion of Secular Humanism and its cornerstone teaching of Darwinian evolution.

At this point there should be no doubt in the reader's mind that the foundations of this country's educational system were Christian. Nor should there be any doubt that this system performed admirably. Regrettably, we are no longer teaching our children under this system. In fact, as of November 17, 1980 it is now supposedly unconstitutional for the very same Ten Commandments which McGuffey's Reader said were plenary to a child's education to even be posted on the school house wall.

# 21 Since the mid nineteen forties, we have slowly but surely been replacing this God-centered educational system with an amoral humanistic one. What have been the resultsof this switch? Following are merely two. The crime rate in the Los Angeles public school system became so bad that the then Attorney General for California, George Dukemejian, filed suit against the local school board. In so doing he maintained that to force students to attend those schools was tantamount to inflicting cruel and unusual punishment upon them.

# 22 Not only are many public schools unsafe, but most have not been able to fulfill what has historically been considered their primary responsibility; that of teaching Dick and Jane to read. This failure has been so complete that as of 1975, the U.S. Dept. of Health, Education,, and Welfare estimated that 20% of our adult population lacked the basic skills necessary to even function in every day life. Today there are over 23 million adults in this country who are functionally illiterate. However, things aren't fairing much better for school kids either. Forty percent of our grade school graduates are unable to read appropriate grade level material. Eighty percent of these same children cannot even write a simple descriptive paragraph.

# 23 Our current public school system is in such a shambles that one national educator was quoted as saying that if an enemy had done to our schools what we have done to our schools, it would have been considered an act of war. Yet this is the same system which the evolutionists want to not only maintain, but pump even more money into.

While this state of affairs is indeed deplorable, it should come as no surprise. This is especially so when we consider the source of the educational philosophy which has governed our public school system during the last half of this century. John Dewey (1859 - 1952) is considered to be the father of what has unfortunately been called our modern system of "progressive" education. According to Will Durant, " The starting point of his (Dewey's) system of thought is biological: he sees man as an organism in an environment… (Dewey believed that) things are to be understood through their origins..without the intrusion of supernatural considerations." (emphasis added)

# 24 Few of us however realize that Dewey was also one of the authors and signers of the Humanist Manifesto. What these two facts reveal is that the humanistic/evolutionistic viewpoint which has permeated our public schools is the very same anti-Christian philosophy which, as we saw earlier in this study, is totally incapable of supporting the morals and ethics which are essential if a society is to remain healthy and vibrant. Not only that, but through a process known as 'values clarification' the public schools have actively sought to undermine what remains of the Judaeo/Christian ethic which has served this country so well since its very inception.

Just in case you may be under the impression that values clarification is nothing more than a harmless philosophical exercise, I wish to remind you that according to humanists "... moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics ... (are) situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. (parenthesis add)

# 25 You see, humanists do not want the absolute Christian values which served as the foundation upon which this country was built "clarified" ie. made perfectly clear in the student's mind.They want these ethics expunged and replaced with their own. Again, just in case you feel that I may be stretching the point just a bit, I suggest that you ponder carefully the implications of this statement by Harvard professor emeritus Joseph Fletcher, author of the book Situational Ethics:

Whether we ought to follow a moral principle or not would, I contend, always depend upon the situation… If we are, as I would want to reason, obliged in conscience sometimes to engage in white lies, as we often call them, then in conscience we might be obliged sometimes to engage in white thefts, and white fornications, and white killings, and white breaking of promises, and the like. (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:15:38 AM
# 26 In his report entitled "Schooling for the Future", Dr. John Goodlad of the National Education Association boldly stated that "Our goal is behavioral change. The majority of our youth still hold to the values of their parents, if we do not resocialize them to accept change, our society will decay."

# 27 The foregoing is not meant to serve as an indictment of those open minded truth seeking public school teachers who are sincerely attempting to present all sides of the origins issue. It is however intended to point out in no uncertain terms that the evolutionistic/humanist philosophy which controls our schools is anything but neutral when it comes to religion. Humanism's strong anti-Christian position is clearly spelled out in the following quote from an article entitled "A Religion for a New Age" which appeared in the Jan/Feb 1983 issue of The Humanist magazine:

(T)he battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity... These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level - preschool day care or large university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between ... the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism...

# 28 In spite of all this, evolutionists insist that if the creationists are successful in turning our schools around they will be establishing "... the groundwork for legally enforced ignorance and totalitarian thought control."

# 29 On one hand, the facts clearly show that our God-centered educational system produced the most enlightened and freest populace which the world had ever seen. On the other hand, they reveal that the atheistic/evolutionistic thought process which currently controls public education in this country has produced the highest level of illiteracy and ignorance in our history. Yet humanists do not want us to return to our Christian educational roots because if we do, he thinks we will end up with the same tragic results which our current atheistic system has already achieved!

Such thinking may make sense in Alice's Wonderland or Orwell's Animal Farm; however, I do not find it particularly compelling. But then I am honestly concerned about the sad state of public education in this country; whereas, many evolutionistic humanists leave the clear impression that for them, the most important aspect of public education has nothing to do with 'teaching' our children, as that concept has been traditionally understood. As a case in point, note the thoughts of humanist scholar Paul Blanshard:

I think the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is sixteen tends to lead toward the elimination, of religious superstition... This mitigates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history... Humanism as a scholarly substitute for religious mythology is quietly gaining ground.

# 30 Unfortunately for today's students though, the inroads made by this philosophy of humanism have come about at the expense of academic integrity. Not only do these evolutionistic humanists purposefully ignore the scientific facts which disprove their theory, but they are rewriting our very history by eliminating virtually all references to Christianity from many textbooks. If you are under the impression that this is simply not so, then consider the words of one professor of education at Harvard University:

Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural Being, toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It is up to you teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.

# 31 Eldredge closed his discussion on the plight of the American educational system with this warning, "... scientific illiteracy will send the United States on a surer and straighter path to hell than ever will the idea called evolution."

# 32 As we saw earlier, he equated the potential downfall of the United States with creationism, but now he equates its salvation with his brand of science.

There can be no doubt that in a technological society such as ours, science (true science that is) is important. But there is a vast difference between the scientific world of experimentation and the evolutionary world of conjecture. Dr. Randal Susman, an evolutionistic anthropologist with the University of New York at Stony Brook, acknowledged that, "We go about things indirectly, and as a result its open to a lot more error than sciences where you have experimentation." (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:18:30 AM
# 33 (side note: How can you have SCIENCE without experimentation?) What's more though is that David Pilbeam, Harvard University's top evolutionary anthropologist, recently conceded that this conjecture has played a major role in his field of study. "I know that at least in paleontology... theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have in the past, clearly reflected our current idologies, instead of actual data." (emphasis added)

# 34 While he is himself a dedicated evolutionist, Dr. Robert Bakker, of the University of Colorado, also recently acknowledged that even today, many of his colleagues still allow their preconceived notions to influence their actions and statements. Apparently he recognizes the fact that in reality, such thinking represents the very anthesis of true science. He even went so far as to refer to such thinking as "pretzel logic."

# 35 Needless to say, there is a vast difference between true science and evolution. There is also a vast difference between the discoveries cautiously announced by the scientific world of experimentation and the Olympian pronouncements made by many in the evolutionary community. It was not until after three years of careful research and testing that Louis Pasteur was willing to make public his discovery of a possible treatment for rabbis. Even then it was only after he was faced with a life or death situation for a young boy.

# 36 On the other hand we have Richard Leakey, who, on Friday August 27, 1982 found a jawbone in the hills of western Kenya and on Tuesday August 31st, only four days later held a news conference and announced, "We consider it a critical specimen ... we expect to find it about 8 million years old. It fills that fossil gap."

# 37 However, we should not be surprised by such declarations. Leakey shares a common preconceived notion with most evolutionists. He openly admits that "I find it very strange that today many people still think of evolution as just a theory ... there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate evolution as a fact... We're here as a result of a series of accidents. There is nothing pre-planned about humanity."

# 38 Remember now, this statement is made in spite of the fact that as we have so clearly seen, the evidence in question does not support the theory of evolution. What this evidence does support though is the proposition that the evolutionist's preconceived notion that evolution is a fact has caused them to ignore, misrepresent, or misinterpret virtually every anthropological, archaeological, or biological discovery since Darwin first proposed his hypothesis.

In spite of the fact that some evolutionists will now admit that they rely more on hindsight than they do on equations,

# 39 evolutionists are determined in their efforts to equate the theory of evolution (in all its variant forms) with true science. At the same time they label the creationist's viewpoint as religious.

# 40 By doing this, they hope to keep any talk of creationism from entering into the science classroom. They seek to protect their brand of science from the damaging influences which they think the creationist's thought process might inflict. They do this even if, as Dr. Robert Jastrow pointed out, they must ignore the very evidence for creation which they themselves have uncovered.

Just what do you suppose would happen to today's public school science classroom if members of the evolutionary community honestly evaluated their position? The answer to that question was given by Dr. Colin Patterson during his keynote address at Eldredge's own American Museum of Natural History on November 5, 1981. As you read this astounding quote keep in mind the fact that these are not the words of a creationist, but are those of a man who has defended the evolutionist's position for more than 20 years.

One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I thought I had been working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, anything that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school. (emphasis added)

# 41 As I said at the outset of this study, I am not against science. Nor am I against any evolutionist believing what he wants to believe, or even expounding upon it in some course on comparative religions or philosophy. At least in 306 B.C. Epicurus was honest enough to call his theory of the chance creation of life a "philosophy." Christianity has been confronted with the task of refuting those who believe in the chance creation of the world ever since the Apostle Paul first met Epicurean philosophers, as recorded in Acts 17:18-24.

Some of those highly educated men belittled Paul by asking, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Today's Epicurean philosophers, otherwise known as "evolutionistic scientists', also taunt Christians. All to often they prefer character assassination to an honest discussion of the issues. To quote Stephan Jay Gould, "Creationist-bashing is a noble and necessary pursuit these days."

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:20:11 AM
# 42 Rather than address the facts, they accuse us of having committed intellectual suicide when we accept the Genesis account of creation. However, I ask you to consider the possibility that it is not the Christian who is guilty of this self-inflicted crime. The Bible after all, has not been proven wrong by true science. Numerous times archaeologists and historians thought that the Bible was wrong, but each time, further investigation and subsequent discoveries have proven the Biblical account to be accurate. Whereas, the evolutionists have been forced to abandon all three major tenets of Darwin's theory less than 100 years after it was proposed; the gradual evolution of all species, geologic uniformitarianism, and the simultaneous initial appearance of mankind at numerous locations throughout the earth. Needless to say, the facts clearly show that the Biblical record of accuracy clearly exceeds that of Darwinian evolution.


1) Gary DeMar - God and Government, Vol.1 (Atlanta, GA: American Press, 1982) p. 4

2) Niles Eldredge - Monkey Business - A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982) . p. 22

3) Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America, (St Davids, PA: Arthur S. Demoss Foundation, 1986) p. 37; also Sterling Lacy - Valley of Decision (Texarkana, TX: Dayspring Publications, 1988 ) p. 8

4) DeMar, op cit. pp. 128-129

5) Flood, op cit. p. 150

6) CBN University Master Plan, (Now Regent University) (Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University, 1983) p. 2

7) ibid p. 2

8 ) ibid p. 2

9) Henry M. Morris - Men of Science - Men of God (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988 ) p. 39

10) CBN, op cit. p. 2

11) Focus Magazine, Vol IV, # 1, Winter 1981, (CBN University publication) p. .34

12) Fisher Ames, The Mercury and New England Palladium, Vol XVII No.8, (Tuesday, January 27, 1801) p. 1 see also Seth Ames (Ed), Works of Fisher Ames, Vol. II (New York: Birt Franklin, 1971) pp.405-406.

13) Kennedy, D. J. - The Great Deception - a speech delivered December 1, 1992, Ottawa, IL)-

14) James C. Hefley - America - One Nation Under God, (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1975) p. 78

15) Vera Hall - The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America (San Francisco, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1979) pp. 401-402

16) Marshall Foster and Mary Elaine Swanson, The American Covenant, (Santa Barbra, CA: The Mayflower Institute, 1983) p. XIV

17) Lacy, op cit. p. 37

18 ) John Whitehead - The Separation Illusion, (Millford, MI: Mott Media, 1977), p. 62

19) Hefley, op cit. p. 74

20) Flood, op cit. p. 122

21) ibid p. 82

22) Carl Sommer - Schools in Crisis, Training for Success or Failure, (Houston, TX: Cahill, 1984) p. 107

23) World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 Ed., Vol 10, p. 65 also Lacy, op cit. p. 36

24) Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956 Ed. Vol VII, p. 297

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:21:42 AM
25) D. James Kennedy - Moral Absolutes; Yes or No? (Ft Lauderdale, FL: Coral; Ridge Ministries, 1981) p. 2

26) ibid p. 1

27) Rolin M. Travis, "Should the Children of God Be Educated in the Temple of Baal", Presbyterian Journal (Feb. 13, 1985) , p. 6

28 ) John Dunphy, "A Religion For a New Age", The Humanist , Vol 43 #1 (Jan/Feb 1983) , p. 26

29) Eldredge - op cit. back cover

30) Paul Blanshard, "Three Cheers for Our Secular State", The Humanist, Vol. 36 (March/April 1976), p. 17

31) Travis, op cit. p. 6

32) Eldredge op cit. p. 147

33) Paul Raebutn, "Anthropoligists Dispute Over Fossil Skeletons", The Albuquerque Journal, Vol. 102 No 12 (June 12, 1983)

34) David Pillbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree", Human Nature, (June 1988 ), p. 45

35) Elizabeth Vitton, "Leaping Lizards? Maybe Not", 3-2-1 Contact (June 1990), p. 24

36) World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 Ed Vol. 15, p. 170 ()

37) UPI, Albuquerque Journal, Vol 102, No 244 (Sept. 1, 1982)

38 ) Thomas Goldthwaite, "Television" Arizona Republic, 1983

39) Donald Johanson, Lucy: The Beginning of Mankind, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 7

40) "You Decide/ Should Public Schools Teach Creationism?", Scholastic Update, Vol. 121, No. 8, Dec. 6, 1988

41) Colin Patterson, Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November, 5, 1981, as quoted in Andrew Snelling, The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd., 1990) p. 4

42) Stephen Jay Gould, "The First Unmasking of Nature," Natural History, Vol 102, No.4 (April 1993) p.19,

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:45:23 AM
Chapter VIII

Let's engage in one final intellectual exercise. For various reasons, Christians who accept the Biblical account of the Great Flood are considered naive. Let's take a look at just a few of those reasons and see what the facts really reveal. Some people say that the Ark was to small to hold all those animals. However, when using even the smallest definition of what a cubit was, the Ark contained approximately 1,396,000 cubic feet of space, was divided into 3 decks, and displaced about 20,000 tons of water. (see Gen.6:1-16) All told, it is estimated that Noah would have had to accommodate about 17,000 pairs of animals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians on board the Ark. Keep in mind that there was no requirement that the elephants, giraffes, hippopotami, and yes, probably even the dinosaurs, had to be adult in size; only that they had to be male and female. Even if they were all adults, the average size of the combined population would be approximately that of a sheep. In that case they would all fit into the space found in 146 two-tiered stock transport cars. Since the Ark was large enough to hold 522 such stock cars, the amount of supplies they had room to carry would be an amount equal to that which could be carried in 376 such cars. So much for the inadequate space argument.

# 1 Others have argued that the flood was only a local inundation. However, such an assertion does not fit with the Biblical account which specifically says that the waters covered the tops of the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. That statement alone makes it world-wide in scope, but then so do those found in II Pe.3:6, Heb.11:7, I Pe.3:20, and Jesus' own, words in Lk.17:27. Those who believe in only a local deluge also ignore the fact that while details may be different, every culture which can be traced back to the approximate time of the flood, mentions a worldwide flood. These cultures were themselves formed by the descendants of Noah and were scattered throughout the earth after their languages were confused at the Tower of Babal. As each culture drifted further and further away from worshipping the one true God who created us all, their versions of the flood likewise drifted further and further from the true account as contained in Genesis.

Still other people have said that not enough water would have been available to cover the whole earth. However, since 71% of the earth's surface is currently covered with water to an average depth of 12,500 feet, and there is a great deal of water stored in the polar ice caps (which weren't always frozen), and the waters came up from the deep and down from the atmosphere, there would have been more than enough water to cover the world.

Two things need to be noted in this regard. First, the atmosphere may well have contained much more water than it does now in the form of a vapor mist canopy. Secondly, the mountain ranges may well have been lower prior to the flood than they are now. Therefore, less water would have been needed to cover the tops of the mountains in the predeluvian age. (See the Scripture references following point #5 below)

Finally, many people have wondered how the animals would have overcome their natural fear of man and voluntarily come to Noah. The answer is found in Genesis 9:2 which tells us that animals did not have a 'natural' fear of man until after the flood. We also need to bear in mind that the rest of Genesis tells us that God led the animals to Noah.

So much for some of the more prominent objections which are raised by skeptics. Now, let's take a quick look at merely a few of the geological and paleontological problems which the evolutionists cannot answer, but which are answered by the Genesis account of the flood.

1) The flood would explain the sudden disappearance of hundreds of species which failed to adapt to the great climatic changes which occurred after the flood. (The dinosaurs would of course be a prime example of this.)

2) The disappearance of the vapor-mist canopy, which previously provided a natural greenhouse effect on the Earth, would explain the geological evidence of a tropical climate which was universal until after the flood.

3) The flood would explain the size of the otherwise inexplicably huge fossil beds found in Africa, Sicily, and numerous other locations.

4) The weight of all that extra water on the earth's surface could easily account for the vertical drops measured in miles, previously mentioned by Dr. Landes.

5) The geologic upheaval which took place during the flood, and shortly thereafter as the world settled down, would serve as a logical explanation for the location of marine fossils on mountain tops, the apparent young age of many mountain ranges, and the unbroken wave pattern which appears in many rock layers. This pattern could not have been formed in 'solid' rock unless the rock layers in which these patterns appear were in a liquid, gel-like or pliable condition when the layers moved, which is the state they would have been in immediately after the flood. Remember, 75% of the rock found on the continents is sedimentary rock, which is rock that has been laid down by water.

Concerning the mountain building which took place during or immediately after the flood, note Psalm 104:8 as translated in either the RSV, NAS, LB, or ML translations. (While not directly related to the flood, please note also, that the 'continental drift' need not have taken hundreds of millions of years to accomplish, but may well have occurred either during the life of Peleg "...because in his time the earth was divided" (Gen 10:25),or as a direct result of the geologic upheaval associated with the upsurge of the fountains of the deep.)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:48:30 AM
6) The suddenness of the climatic change after the flood would explain the quick frozen condition of the Siberian Mammoths - something no ice age theory has satisfactorily accounted for.

7) The mysterious fossil finds of Leakey and others would suggest the very sudden burial in a substance other than hot lava or ash, of many soft-bodied creatures, and hence their remarkable state of preservation.

8 ) The flood would also explain the massive simultaneous burial of the billions of tons of vegetation necessary to account for the coal, and the simultaneous burial of the billions of animals necessary to account for the oil which is found in the earth today. Note, it doesn't take millions of years for coal to form. It has been formed in laboratories in a few minutes.

# 2 Oil has been produced from organic material in less than 6 years under controled conditions,

# 3 and is acknowledged by modern geologists to have occurred naturally in as little as a few thousand years.

# 4 9) The massive geological formations such as the Decca Plateau of India, could most reasonably be explained by the major upheaval of such a catastrophic flood.

The list goes on and on.

# 5 The point is, the Genesis account of the flood provides us with sensible answers to questions which hadn't even been asked when the Bible was written; whereas, evolutionist's cannot yet provide answers to the questions they themselves have asked. All the philosophy of evolution can do is give conflicting answers to some, ignore others, and call the remainder of them 'mysteries' Now I ask you, "Which is the intellectual approach?"

Intellectually speaking, the integrity, uniformity, and accuracy of the Bible is better established than any book found in the entire collection of books which is collectively known as "The Great Books of the Western World." The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years, with God using more than 40 writers coming from all walks of life. He used a king and a shepherd, a general and a fisherman, statesman and servant, a tent making Rabbi and a gentile doctor, and a prophet and a tax collector. It was written in three languages on three continents, during times of war and during times of peace; yet, its uniformity, when dealing with the most controversial subjects ever to face mankind is unparalleled by any book, philosophy, or science ever devised by man.

Some professors who are considered intellectual, readily accept the authorship, philosophical content, and in some cases the literal historical accuracy of Homer's Illiad yet scoff at the integrity of the Bible. But consider this. The Iliad was written in 900 B.C., with the earliest known copy of it coming from 400 B.C. This means that of the more than 643 earliest copies or portions of copies of the Illiad which exist today, none were made earlier than 500 years after the original was penned by Homer himself. On the other hand, the books which comprise the New Testament were written between, 40 AD and 100 AD, with the earliest copies or fragments of copies in existence today, coming from 124 A.D. That gives us a span of only 25 years from the original to the existing copies as compared to 500 years for the Iliad Now I ask you, "Which one has the greatest chance of containing transcription error?"

Furthermore, there are over 24,000 ancient copies or portions thereof of the New Testament as opposed to only 643 copies or portions thereof of the Iliad. Yet the Iliad is considered to be the most authenticated piece of ancient literature (aside from the Bible) that was ever written. Remember Lucretius, the Roman poet/philosopher who was cited approvingly by the evolutionist Gavin deBeer? His writings are verifiable from only 2 known early manuscripts, and the earliest of these is a copy made 1,000 years after he died. In spite of these facts, the 'intellectual evolutionists' give more credence to the works of Lucretius than they do to the Word of God.

To the truth seeking open minded individual who accepts the theory of evolution I ask this favor. Before you give any more credence to those who dismiss the Bible as nothing more than the wisdom of a near eastern culture thousands of years removed from modern man, read a book entitled Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowel. I have no association with Mr. McDowel whatsoever. However, I refer to his book because of the depth of research and easily verifiable references contained therein. Of course, I would rather have you refer directly to the Bible, but if you do not feel that you can intellectually do so until after you have verified it to a greater extent than any book ever written has been verified, read McDowell's book.

I Cor.2:14 tells us that, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." While the things of God are indeed foolishness to the man who denies God's existence, the "...wisdom of such a man is foolishness to God" (I Cor.3:19) Allow me to point out one other example of the foolish statements made by evolutionists. In one breath they say they accept the moral principles found in the Bible, yet by denying the Genesis account of creation, they are calling the author of those principles a liar!

To any proponent of the theory of evolution who has read this far, I would like to say that this book has not been written to attack any person, but rather an idea. The Apostle Paul asked this question in Gal. 4:16, "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?" It is not my desire that you and I be enemies. It is however my desire for you to know the truth. In this case, the truth is crystal clear. The idea of Darwinian evolution is diametrically opposed to God's Word, and it has as its prime purpose the elimination from your mind of your need for a personal Savior. As we have already seen, it is doing this by deceiving you into thinking that you are getting better and better. It is telling you that you can overcome all things solely by looking deep within yourself, and then drawing upon that which is in you and all mankind. However, unless that which is in you is Jesus Christ, you will eventually fail.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:51:18 AM
The Theory of Evolution is merely the 'natural outcome' of the religion/philosophy of Secular Humanism. Philosophies themselves are the direct result of our sense knowledge's failure to find true reality to life. Since these philosophies deny the existence of the God of creation, whom they can neither see, feel, taste, hear, or smell, they came up with their own explanations for life's purpose, functions, goals, and origins. Yet, they all contradict each other.

What's more regrettable for those who cling to them though, is the fact that they have all failed to give true - lasting meaning to life. The evolutionist/humanist philosopher is like the undertaker who covers the casket with flowers to hid that which is concealed within. Evolutionists seek to hide their failure to give purpose to life, let alone explain its origins, by using flowery language. But as is true with the undertaker, once you get past all the pretty flowers and look closely at what is really there, all you find is death. And it could well be your soul that is lying there. Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ, is the way, the truth, and the life. (John 3:18 & 14:6)

I ask you to consider this. If you are right and I am wrong in my assertion that there not only is a creator God, but that this creator is the One True God as recorded in Genesis, then as both you and I stand together facing eternity, we will do so on an equal footing. However, if you are wrong and I am indeed correct, then we will still face eternity together, but we will no longer be on an equal footing. The very God whom you denied will say to me "Well done thy good and faithful servant." (Matt. 25:21 KJV) But because He is the God of Truth and Justice, as well as the God of Creation, He will say to you who denied Him, "Depart from Me, for I know you not." (Lk. 13:41).

Please do not tell me that a really loving God would not do that. Such a statement comes from taking only part of what the Bible tells us about God and ignoring the rest. You see, He is the God of Love, but He is also just. He showed His love for all men by sending Jesus Christ to die for us. He has said that salvation is available to all who come to Him through Jesus. Therefore, since He is Just and does not lie, that is the ONLY way to salvation. (see John 14:6, John 8:24, Acts 4:12, I John 5:12 and John 3:18 ) Are you now willing to stake the well being of your soul upon a theory which is as changing as the shifting sand? I shall pray that you are not so inclined. I do so not from any position of self righteousness or arrogance, but from a sincere desire that you and I will indeed face eternity together standing on the rock of Jesus Christ. That desire comes not from within myself, but from the very God who created you and me.

If you are a deistic evolutionist who accepts the theory that there is a God who, at the very outset, created that initial particle of matter from which the whole universe arose, you are now faced with this question, "Who is this God?" You may have done so in the past, but you cannot now ignore that question and remain intellectual. No religion on earth allows you that option except Secular Humanism which says that man is his own god, and we both know that neither you nor I created that initial particle.

Islam, Hinduism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists, to name merely a few, all accept Jesus Christ as either a prophet, divine teacher, a god (with a little "g"), one of many gods (again with a little "g"), or a great man; but they each deny that He is, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the one True God. However, that is exactly who He said He was. (see John 5:18, Matt.1:23 and 28:19, John 10:33 & 30, John 17:11, Col.2:9, John 1:1, Rev.1:17 with Isaiah 44:6, and Rev.2:23 with Jer.17:10) Therefore, since the aforementioned religions deny that He is who He said He was, they are calling Him a 'liar'. At the same time however they accept Him as either a prophet, divine teacher, god, one of many gods, or a great man. They say he is not God; yet He says He is, but they still pay Him a great deal of homage. Now, I ask you, "Can you accept a belief system which gives such great honor to a man which it claims is a liar?" Both the intelligent answer and the Biblical answer has to be "No." You see, the truly intelligent answer, and the Biblical answer are never at odds with each other. That does not mean that the Biblical answer is always the obvious answer, but than neither is the intelligent one either.

You are now face to face with the issue that those other religions attempt to side step by relegating Jesus to a role other than the one which is rightfully His. (Col.1:17) You must either accept Him for what He is, or call Him a liar. In addition to being the Savior whom the Father sent to die for our sins, Jesus claims to be the Creator. And He claims that He did it in exactly the same way that Genesis chapters 1 & 2 tell us that He did. If you deny that, then you have placed yourself in the same position as that of an atheistic evolutionist; namely, you have denied God by calling Him a liar.

I would therefore ask you what I earlier asked the evolutionist to consider. "Are you willing to stake your soul upon the theory of evolution?" For you that would be an even less intelligent choice than it was for the evolutionist because you already know there is a God. All that is left for you to decide is "Who is the One True God?" Because we have already eliminated all those systems which pay homage to someone they in reality believe to be a liar, you are again left standing at the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ.

I ask you to do the only intelligent thing. Reach out for the gift of eternal life which the Just but Loving God of Creation freely offers you when you accept Jesus as your personal Savior. While that may not be considered intellectual by any evolutionist who insists that this country's future is dependent upon his version of science ( which in reality is nothing more than atheistic humanism masquerading as science), I wish to remind you that this country was not discovered by an evolutionist/humanist, but by a man who said:

It was the Lord who put into my mind... the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies... There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit... It is merely the fulfillment of what Isaiah prophesied... No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior if it is just and if the intention is purely for His Holy service... the fact that the Gospel must still be preached to so many lands in such a short time - this is what convinces me. (Dairy of Christopher Columbus)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:53:54 AM
# 6 Note, see Isaiah 40:22, Prov.8:27, and Job 26:10

I wish to remind you that the Virginia Company which sponsored the Jamestown expedition in 1607, stated that the first purpose for the plantation was:

To preach and baptize into (the) Christian religion, and by propagation of the Gospel, to recover out of the arms of the devil a number of ... souls wrapped up into death.

# 7 Let me also to remind you that this country was colonized not by evolutionistic humanists, but by men who said that they undertook their voyage to plant their colony:

... for the Glory of God and for the advancement of the Christian faith. (Mayflower Compact)

# 8 The first written constitution in America, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, recognized in 1639 that:

The Word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such people, there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God.

The New England Confederation of May 19, 1643 recognized that the common bond between its signers was not the philosophy of secular humanism, but the desire to '...advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace.

Allow me to point out that the Rhode Island Charter of 1683 began with these words:

We submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given to us in His Holy Word.

On July 2, 1776, when the vote to declare independence was taken, Samuel Adams declared the sentiment of the day, not in terms of humanistic rhetoric, but by saying:

We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and ... from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.

# 9 Concerning the Revolutionary War itself, President John Quincy Adams noted in 1821 that:

The highest and greatest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

# 10 Let us take note that after graduating from Princeton in 1771, James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution', spent 6 months of post graduate study under the private tutelage of Princeton's president, John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was one of the most prominent of the colonial ministers who took part in the Great Awakening revival which swept America between 1725 and 1760. Whitherspoon spent this time instructing Madison in the principles of civil government as set forth in the Bible.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:56:17 AM
# 11 ( eg. Isaiah 33:22 - separation of powers and Ezra 7:24 - tax exemption for Church)

In 1695, John Locke expressed the following sentiment which, along with the knowledge gained from Witherspoon, formed the basis of Madison's philosophy of government,

As men we have God for our King, and are under the law of reason. As Christians we have Jesus the Messiah for our King, and are under the law revealed by Him in the Gospel.

# 12 In 1828, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story acknowledged that: the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the First Amendment to it,... the general if not the universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement by the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to level all religions (that is, to make Christianity simply one of many religions) and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation if not universal indignation... (parenthesis added)

# 13 This country was organized not by evolutionistic humanists, but by men who said such things as:

No people can be found to acknowledge and adore the invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States... We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right Heaven itself ordained. (Inaugural Address of George Washington, April 30, 1789)

# 14 As concerns the constitutions of the original states, as late as 1876 these contained statements such as the following: Delaware's which recognized "the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of the Author of the Universe." And included in, its oath of office the following words, "...I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God blessed forever more."

# 15 Maryland's said "...the legislature may ... lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion" and required a "... declaration of belief in the Christian religion" from all of its state officers.

# 16 Massachusetts' constitution directed local political bodies to "... make suitable provisions, at their own expense, for the institution of public worship of God..."

# 17 And North Carolina's stated that " person who shall deny the being of God, or the divine authority of the Old and New Testament... shall be capable of holding office or place of trust ... within this state."

# 18 I wish to remind you that in 1892, in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the Supreme Court acknowledged that:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian... This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation... We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

Finally I wish to remind you that the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the Constitution of the United States, but rather that it is found in the 'Constitution' of the FORMER Soviet Union. The so-called 'intelligent evolutionist' has once again founded his argument upon a false premise. He is either ignorant of the true facts, or has once again covered them up. But that should not surprise you, for that is the history of the theory of evolution.

Eldredge tells us that "freedom to practice religion - any religion - is one of the dearest rights Americans have. Such pluralistic tolerance can only be had in a secular society where the state has no vested interest in any single religious view." (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 09:58:50 AM
# 19 While this statement sounds great, like the entire theory of evolution itself, it can only be believed if the volume of evidence which proves it false is ignored.

First of all, every single quote from either the foundational documents or great men of America's history which you have just read, as well as those which were presented in the preceding chapter, all point to but one inescapable conclusion. While it is true that no single denomination was to be given preference over any other denomination within the framework of our Federal government, the teachings of Jesus Christ, as found in the Bible, served as the very foundation upon which that government was based. Were Mr.Eldredge to examine the 15,000 or so documents and essays written by our founding fathers during that period in American history he would find that 34% of all direct quotes found in those writings were taken from a single source - the Holy Bible!!! As Calvin Coolidge so aptly noted, it would be difficult to support this government if in fact a majority of its citizens ceased to believe in those teachings, or rejected the moral values and principles of self restraint they entail.

Abraham Lincoln said it about as well as anybody could have when he said, "... those nations only are blessed, whose God is the Lord."

# 20 Lincoln recognized a very basic truth which seems to have eluded many evolutionistic humanists. That truth is this: this country has a vested interest in the Christian religion, for without it we cannot endure as a nation. Even Thomas Jefferson, who is considered by many to be merely a deist, made this observation:

Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

# 21 Obviously, as a nation we cannot continue to shake our fist at God and expect His blessings in return. Perhaps this is why George Washington, when discussing the importance of morality and Christianity to our country's future, said that no man had the right to "...claim the name of Patriotism who seeks to undermine those pillars.

# 22 (So much for 'evolutionistic' patriotism.)

  The greatest amount of religious freedom ever guaranteed by any government throughout history is found in the United States; but not because our system is rooted in secular humanism, which it obviously is not, or even because it is rooted merely in religious beliefs. After all, Islamic countries such as Iran, Pakistan, or even, Saudi Arabia do not practice pluralistic tolerance. Governmentally sanctioned religious intolerance is also the rule and not the exception in many Buddhist and Hindu countries as well. Our religious freedom exists solely because of our uniquely Christian heritage.

The freedom to practice religion found in our Constitution was placed there not by secular humanists, but by committed Christians. The society in which these men lived was not founded upon the situational ethics of atheistic humanism, but was anchored to the rock of Jesus Christ. The educational system which molded the thoughts of these men was not shaped by the philosophy of evolutionistic humanism, but was based upon the principle that true knowledge begins with an understanding of the fundamental truths of the Bible, which includes Genesis chapters 1 & 2.

By no means were these men perfect. Nor were they all strongly committed Christians. They were sinners like the rest of us, but they were the first to admit that fact. As such, as opposed to thinking that they were getting better and better, they knew that they needed to look someplace other than within themselves to find the answers to the questions which were facing them. They did exactly that. They looked to the Bible - found the teachings of Jesus Christ - then formed a government based upon those principles.

To assume that a government based upon the premise of secular humanism is even capable of pluralistic religious tolerance is ludicrous. After all, the secular humanistic philosophy which now controls our public education system ( which has itself been declared by the U.S. Supreme Court, to be a religious belief

# 23 ), has been shown to be totally intolerant of opposing opinions. Furthermore, the evolutionists are the ones who absolutely insist that their view, and their view alone, be taught exclusively in our science classrooms. Needless to say, that is not the position which you would expect academically tolerant people to take.

All you need to do is examine the record of governments which either were in the immediate past, or are still today, totally secular in nature. There is no religious freedom in the secular societies of Mainland China, North Korea, Vietnam, or any other communist secular society. Under these systems many Christians face not only harassment, but imprisonment and torture. The reason for this is quite simple. By definition, secular humanism is atheistic in viewpoint. As such, it is diametrically opposed to any philosophy which calls upon or acknowledges the existence of any supernatural being.

Should you be under the presupposition that American humanists are more tolerant than their overseas counterparts, I suggest that you examine the views of such humanists as Gloria Steinem who expressed her hope that "By the year 2000 we will …raise our children to believe in human potential, not God …..(emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 10:00:54 AM
# 24 Nor should we overlook those of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. who revealed his attitude with this statement, "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile." (emphasis added)

# 25 Paul Brandwein even went so far as to emphatically state that "Any child who believes in God is mentally ill." (emphasis added)

# 26 When you add to these supposedly 'tolerant' positions the fact that humanists consider belief in God a sign of weakness, and evolution maintains that only the strong will survive, you will arrive at only one conclusion. It is impossible for any government which maintains a totally secular position to be tolerant of anyone who believes that "In God We Trust."


1) Thomas F. Heinze, Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980) pp. 106-113

2) G.R. Hill, Chemical Technology, May 1972, p. 296

3) Saxby, J.D., et al, "Petroleum Generation: Simulation Over Six Years of Hydrocarbon Formation From Torbanite and Brown Coal in a Subsiding Basin" Organic Geochemistry, Vol. 9(2) (1986) p.80.

4) Simoneit, B.R.T. and Lonsdale, P.F. "Hydrothermal Petroleum in Mineralized Mounds at the Seabed of Guaymas Basin"; Nature, Vol. 295, (1982) pp. 198-202, see also Science Frontiers (July/August, 1991) , p.3 and New Scientist Vol 130 (1991) p. 19.

5) Lyall Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, Vol 90, (1982) pp. 67-78; also Baker, op cit. p. 12

6) Gary DeMar, God and Government, Vol 1 (Atlanta, GA: American Vision Press, 1982) p. 126

7) Jamestown 350th Anniversary Commission, The Founding of Jamestown and the Church, (Jamestown,VA: Jamestown Commission, 1957) p.3

8 ) ibid p. 126

9) D. James Kennedy - The Spiritual State of the Union, 1987 (Ft.Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1987), p.4

10) ibid p. 5

11) World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 ed Vol 13, p. 28 (); also Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910 ed Vol 17, p. 284

12) Vera Hall, Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America, (San Francisco, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1975) p. XIII

13) Kennedy - op cit. p. 6

14) DeMar, op cit. p. 127

15) ibid p. 164

16) ibid p. 164

17) ibid p. 164

18 ) ibid p. 165

19) Niles Eldredge - Monkey Business - A Scientist Looks at Creationism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 142

20) Flood, The Rebirth of America (St Davids, PA: Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, 1986) p.32

21) John Whitehead, The Separation Illusion (Millford,MI: Mott Media, 1977) p. 21

22) William Johnson - George Washington (Millford, MI:Mott Media, 1976) p. 112

23) Francis Shaeffer - The Christian Manifesto (Westchester,IL: Crossway Books, 1981) p. 54 (citing to Torcase v. Watkins, 1961)

24) Kennedy - op cit. p. 2

25) ibid p. 2

26) Roland Travis, "Should the Children of God Be Educated in the Temple of Baal, " Presbyterian Journal, (February 13, 1985) p.6

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 10:15:20 AM
Chapter IX
Setting The Record Straight

At times the Apostle Paul was very blunt when addressing the enemies of Jesus Christ (Acts 23:3). Concerning the battle for our children's mind, which in reality is a battle over the truths of God's Word as opposed to the apostasy of humanistic evolution some evolutionists have indicated that the gloves are off. As such, they feel no compunction about referring to creationists as liars, quacks, non-intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, purveyors of a science which is in reality nothing more than double headed, inconsistent gobbledygook, and poor scholars. Some have even called the very God whom we worship, a concocter of creation stories.

# 1 As we saw earlier, Eldredge has stated that the ideas which are basic to the belief in a Creator God, and those promulgated by science are mutually exclusive. He has in effect stated that the very idea of what science is, absolutely and unequivocally requires that any notion of a Creator be set aside. He even went so far as to state that the idea of a supernatural Creator was "utterly beyond the purview of science."

# 2 Such statements do not accurately reflect the ideas and processes which formed the very foundations of modern science. A brief examination of the facts will again set the matter straight.

In his writings‚ one evolutionists gives every impression that Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686), the founder of the science of stratigraphy, was an evolutionist. We are further left with the impression that any adherent to Steno's principle of superposition must, of necessity, deny the Biblical account of the Great Flood.

# 3 The facts however show that Steno was not only a strong Christian, but that he attributed the cause of much of the geologic strata he observed to the very same flood which evolutionists denies.

# 4 By no means though was Nicolaus Steno the only Bible believing scientist. In 1864, 717 scientists, including 86 from the prestigious 'Fellows of the Royal Society' in London, signed the "Declaration of Studentsof the Natural and Physical Sciences." The stated purpose of this document was to reaffirm its signer's belief in the scientific integrity of the Bible.

# 5 Today there are over 700 academically accredited scientists who belong to the Creation Research Society alone, which is only one of over a hundred different creationist societies in the world today. Every one of the men and women who belong to the CRS not only reject all forms of Darwinian evolution, but subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 & 2.

# 6 Furthermore, there are undoubtedly thousands of other Christian scientists who have not spoken out publicly on this issue.

What we find as we probe deeper into this subject is that instead of removing God from science, true science actually directs our attention towards God. Dr. Werner von Braun (1912 - 1977), the German-American rocket scientist who helped pioneer the American space program and who became director of NASA, stated that, "Manned space flight ... has opened ... a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole... shall only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator." (emphasis added)

# 7 Earlier in this century, Paul Lemoins (1878 - 1940), past president of the Geological Society of France, past director of the Natural History Museum of Paris, and himself a former staunch evolutionist, eventually abandoned "Lord Chance" after years of study. Having seen the hand of God everywhere he looked, he came to the conclusion that "the theory of evolution is impossible."

# 8 Stepping back still further in time, we find that Lord William Thompson Kelvin (1824 - 1907), the physicist/mathematician who, among other things, established the scale of absolute temperatures which bares his name, is known as the father of thermodynamics, and who supervised the design and installation of the first trans-Atlantic cable, was a strong Christian. Concerning the theory of evolution, he was quoted as saying that "with regard to the origin of life, science …positively affirms creative power." (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 10:18:02 AM
# 9 Moving all the way back to the very beginnings of scientific inquiry, we come to Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton. These two men are universally recognized as the founders of modern science, in that they were among the first to:

1) organize their research into patterns of coherent analysis, and

2) recognize the fact that there were uniform rules which governed all natural events.

Both of these concepts meant that it was now possible to develop testing procedures which could be duplicated by other researchers in order to verify the results. In other words, these were the men who developed the 'scientific method' which is at the very heart of modern science.

Concerning Newton's approach to inquiry, it has been said that "his intellectual method was the voice of science itself."

# 10 What was this method? I will allow Newton to explain that for himself:

...the proper method for inquiring after the properties of things is to deduce them from experiments... (T)he theory which I propounded was evidenced to me, not by inferring 'tis thus because not otherwise', ... but by deriving it from experiments concluding positively and directly. (emphasis added)

# 11 As we saw earlier though, evolutionists have accepted evolution not because it is observable, but because they could not accept the alternative; ie. special creation (see Cha. II note #24 and Cha. IV note #8 ). They have premised their entire theory upon the "tis thus because not otherwise' argument which Newton indicated was the very anthesis of science.

As opposed to setting aside the One True God of Creation who formulated the very laws of nature which were under investigation, Newton acknowledged that he was dependent upon his relationship with God in order to develop the scientific method. As you may recall from earlier on in this study, Eldredge equated the hypothesis of evolution with the law of gravity which Newton discovered. However, I wonder if Eldredge is aware of the fact that Newton gave all the glory for his discovery to the very Creator whom Eldredge denies? In so doing, Newton, like Johann Kepler before him, acknowledged that all he was doing was "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

# 12 Newton took the position that even though he worked hard and researched diligently, it was the Holy Spirit who imparted these discoveries to him.

#13 While discussing the source of gravity itself, Newton said that:

...the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone, but were impressed by an intelligent agent … (G)ravity may put the planets into motion, but without divine power it could never put them into such circulating motion as they have about the sun... I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this system to an Intelligent Agent." (emphasis added)

#14 who is this "Intelligent Agent" that Newton referred to? Again, I will let Newton speak for himself:

As to Moses, I do not think his description of the creation either philosophical or feigned ... (T)here is a Being who made all things and has all things in His power…(B)y the same power by which He gave life at first to every species of animal, He is able to revive the dead, and has revived Jesus Christ our Redeemer... and has sent the Holy Ghost to comfort us... and will at length return and reign over us. (emphasis added)

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 10:20:59 AM
# 15 Newton did not mince words concerning those in his day who, like today's evolutionistic humanists, deny God. He felt that atheism was not only senseless, but that it was actually odious to mankind.

# 16 By no means though was he the only scientist who shared such sentiments. There have been many since who have expressed similar views.

Jean Henri Casimir Fabre, a French naturalist who was a contemporary of Louis Pasteur, and himself a recipient of the Legion of Honor for his scientific research, expressed his views as follows. "Without Him (God) I understand nothing; without Him all is darkness... Every period has its manias. I regard atheism as a mania. It is the malady of the age. You could take my skin from me more easily than my faith in God." (parenthesis added)

# 17 Like most diseases, the malady of atheism has an adverse effect upon those who suffer from it. The nature of this effect was described by William Herschel (1738 - 1822), the noted astronomer who discovered the planet Uranus. Not only did Herschel view the universe as God's handiwork, but he observed that the "undevout astronomer must be mad."

# 18 Let's pause for just a moment and examine the logic behind Hershel's statement. By stating that there is no God, supposedly intelligent atheists are maintaining the correctness of what is in reality , a universal negative. To say that there is no God is the same as saying that "No where in the universe is there such a thing as God." To say this, you must know all about the universe. If you know all about the universe, you would be omniscient (all knowing). If you were omniscient, you would be God; and to deny your own existence is the height of insanity.

Sir Isaac Newton also noticed the detrimental effect which atheism has upon the mental capacity of its adherents when he said that to believe

...that gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it…(emphasis added)

# 19 It would appear that the evolutionists, who insist that only evolution be taught in our schools, are not only advocating a policy which Clarence Darrow maintained was bigoted, but by maintaining that gravity is innate to matter (as they are forced to do since they have denied God), they have also opened themselves up to Newton's charge that they are devoid of a competent faculty of thinking.

Think about what you have just read for a moment. Sir Isaac Newton, who has been described as "one of the greatest names in the history of human thought",

# 20 said that it was the Holy Spirit who revealed to him, within an 18 month period, the laws of gravitation, the foundations of the science of spectrum analysis, and that branch of mathematics known as Calculus. He also said that anyone who would maintain that gravity was inherent to material objects must be intellectually impaired. Yet, evolutionists of much less renown have the unmitigated gall to say that God and science are an incompatible combination.

# 21 The atheist and evolutionist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who filed suit to have prayer removed from our public schools, says that, "Science is based on reason. Religion is based on faith. The increase of the influence of one means a decrease in the influence of the other."

# 22 But Louis Pasteur, the father of the sciences of bacteriology and biochemistry, said, "The more I know, the more does my faith approach that of a Breton peasant. Could I but know all, I would have the faith of a Breton peasant women."

# 23 The evolutionistic astronomer Owen Gingerich of Harvard University says, "... I believe the heavens declare the glory of God only to people who've made a religious commitment."

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 10:23:28 AM
# 24 But Johann Kepler, the father of physical astronomy said, "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the Glory of God."

# 25 The evolutionist/anthropologist Richard Leakey says that the crowning achievement of his profession will be to amass data "... to the point where it is simply outrageous to doubt that man is the product of an evolutionary sequence."

# 26 But James Simpson, the father of both gynecological medicine and anesthesiology, said that his greatest discovery was that "... I have a Saviour."

# 27 The humanist/evolutionist Preston Cloud stated in the The Humanist ‚magazine that "fundamentalist creationism is not a science, but a form of anti-science."

# 28 But Joseph Lister, the father of anesthetic surgery wrote, "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."

# 29 While contemplating the American public's apparent desire to take back its schools from evolutionistic humanists, Eldredge noted that "... I am none the less sickened by the evidence of real creationist success in the minds of the American public..."

# 30 On the other hand, Lord Kelvin actually taught his students at the University of Glasgow to actively seek the mind of God. He began each morning's lecture with a prayer which included this request "... that all our doings may be ordered by Thy divine governance."

# 31 You now have a choice. You can join ranks with the evolutionists and accept their version of science which denies God; or you can accept the statements of the fathers of modern science, and acknowledge along with them, that it was the very same God whom the evolutionists deny, who created the universe and then set into motion the laws of nature which are at the very heart of the 'scientific method'. These great men of science were creationists in that they unhesitatingly rejected the already existent philosophy of evolution as a viable explanation for the origin of the species.

Which is the intelligent choice? On one hand you have the evolutionist's train of thought, which even Colin Patterson acknowledged conveys nothing but "anti-knowledge". On the other you have the true science of such creationists as:

1) Michael Farady, the father of electro magnetics

2) Matthew Maury, the father of oceanography

3) John Ray, the father of modern biology

4) Robert Boyle, the father of chemistry

5) Charles Babbage, the father of computer science

6) Blaise Pascal, the father of both hydrodynamics & mathematical probabilities and the more than 40 other founders of various branches of modern science who also denied that the philosophy of evolution, in any of its forms, is scientific - using the true sense of the word.

To the Christian who felt that he could accept both God and evolution, I shall close this study with these thoughts. The theory of the origin of the species as presented by evolutionists is not scientific. As we have clearly seen, at various points and in various ways along its chain of development, it not only violates its own supposed rules, but it also violates at least one major principle of each of the separate fields of scientific study known as physics, biology, zoology, astronomy, geology, oceanography, and mathematics. Evolution is not scientific. It is in fact, an imperfect system of beliefs which evolutionists such as Professor Shapley have turned into the false religion which reveres "Lord Chance." As the cornerstone teaching of Secular Humanism, the theory of evolution has exalted itself above God and is demanding to be worshipped. You are God's temple, but it is attempting to set itself up within you as God Himself (II Thes. 2:4). I therefore remind you of the words of Paul to Timothy, as recorded in I Tim.6:20, "... turn away from opposing ideas which are falsely called knowledge which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the truth."

After you have so turned, do not hesitate to refute the apostasy of this teaching (Titus 1:9). When the light of truth is used to reveal the inconsistencies, misleading statements, mathematical impossibilities, invalid assumptions, and circular reasoning upon which this house of cards is built, it will fall with a great crash (Matt.7:27).

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 10:26:00 AM
Stop for a moment and consider the following point. On several occasions throughout this book I have referred to what has become known as the "Scopes Monkey Trial." As you may well know, this case came about in 1925 in Dayton, TN, when a high school teacher by the name of John T. Scopes challenged the Tennessee law which forbid the teaching of evolution in its public schools. If any of you have ever seen the Hollywood movie "Inherit the Wind", you will no doubt remember that Mr. Scopes was portrayed as an idealistic young man whose only concern was presenting his students with the truth. According to this film, Scopes was a victim of the supposedly rabid creationistic fundamentalism which so alarms modern evolutionists. (In reality, Scopes was not even a biology teacher. He was a math teacher/coach who agreed to the scheme of several Dayton, TN businessmen who wanted to see their small community make a name for itself by being the town which challenged Tennessee's new law.)

Present day reference books, such as Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopeida

#32 inform us that while Scopes technically lost the case (he was fined $100), the fundamentalist cause was hurt because, while under "the humiliating" cross examination of Clarence Darrow, William Jennings Bryan, the creationist attorney "... revealed his ignorance of scientific discoveries." But what were the so-called scientific discoveries which served as the justification for the teaching of evolution in 1925? If you will recall, we have already mentioned several of them. However, allow me to quickly review them. As of 1925, the following information was being presented as "scientific fact" by evolutionists:

1) The recapitulation theory ('ontogeny recapitulates (repeats) phylogeny').

2) The theory of geologic uniformitarianism

3) Horses evolved slowly from the now extinct Eohippus.

4) All species changed slowly over hundreds of millions of years.

5) Eoanthropus Dawsoni (Piltdown Man) was the first modern man.

6) Hesperopithecus haroldcooki (Nebraska Man) was an ancestor of man.

7) Neanderthal Man walked with his knees permanently bent, his arms reaching forward, and his head thrust out on a short slanting neck.

8 ) The reason the fossil record does not yet show graduated development of all species is that the elements have eroded the oldest layers of rock and such evidence is harder to find.

9) Archaeopteryx was a transition between the reptiles and the birds.

‚As we have so clearly seen, every one of the 'scientific' facts upon which the evolutionists hung their hats in 1925 turned out to be based upon either misinterpretation of the true facts or outright lies!

Obviously John Scopes was a victim; however, he was a victim of the deceitfulness of evolutionistic humanism - not fundamental Christianity. John Scopes, like his present day counterparts, was ignorant of the truth. Like most high school biology teachers today, he taught what he himself had been taught, or what he had read in the latest supposedly 'scientific' journals of his day which were expounding upon the above mentioned discoveries. In reality, the only thing William Jennings Bryan may have been ignorant of, was the then current batch of eloquent fabrications put forth by his generation's atheistic humanists, otherwise known as "evolutionistic scientists." Under no circumstances should Bryan be criticized for being unaware of these stories. After all, evolutionists are forced to change their story with each new discovery of true science.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 10:29:09 AM
Many Christians are reluctant to challenge today's evolutionists because they are painfully aware of the damage caused by the clashes between Galileo and the Catholic Church which took place from Feb. 5, 1615 to June 22, 1633. Rather than take the chance that they will again be made to look foolish, many theologians simply remain silent. This is indeed unfortunate, for in each instance - both the 20th century theologian's silence, and the 17th century theologians attacks - these theologian's attitudes are and were shaped by false science.

The prevailing 'science' of Galileo's day (which had permeated the minds of many church leaders) was in reality nothing more than the philosophical thinking of ancient Greece. Rather than base their theories upon observation and experimentation, the vast majority of the 17th century's 'scientists' viewed things through the eyes of the philosopher. These men said "tis thus because not otherwise." As you will recall however, Newton made it clear that such a viewpoint was definitely not 'scientific' in nature. Just as the philosophy of Aristotle affected the view held by the religious leaders of the 1600's, so also has the philosophy of evolution warped the thinking of many of today's theologians. Similarly, just as the theologians of Galileo's day misinterpreted Scriptures in order to make them fit the false notion that the earth was at the center of the universe, so also have some of today's liberal theologians misinterpreted the Bible in order to make it fit the false science of evolution.

What is most regrettable though, is that just as the misguided theologians of Galileo's day attacked the true science he was attempting to bring forth, so also have many of today's Biblical scholars sided with modern evolutionists in an attempt to keep the truth of creation science from going forward. But this is not the end of the story. Needless to say, the truth of Galileo's position eventually prevailed over the false science which had influenced the organized church of his day. Today, the continuing discoveries of true scientists are revealing the absurdity of the philosophy of evolution. At the same time, the laser light of God's Word is cutting the cancer of evolution from the true Body of Christ.

The evolutionist/humanist would tell you that there is no absolute truth. However, Jesus Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit, the very Spirit of Truth, to be with us forever (John 14:7). In so doing, He guaranteed us that God's Spirit would guide us into all truth (John 16:13). Therefore, contrary to what the evolutionist tells us, truth is not only a reality, but is available and recognizable to each of us through the Holy Spirit (I Cor.2:12-15). More importantly though, when you expose their lie, you are helping other believers who have unwittingly called God a liar by accepting evolution.

Regardless of how some theologians and scientists have viewed the Bible, either in the past or today, there is no conflict between it and true science. Numerous scientific secrets were revealed in the pages of the Bible several thousand years before they were unlocked by the techniques of modern inquiry. Columbus knew that the world was round, but not because of scientific inquiry. While he had no cause to doubt the best minds of his day who also said that this was the case, he placed greater trust in the Word of God as set forth in Isaiah 40:22. Therein we are told that the Lord "...sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." (emphasis added)

According to the astronomer M. Michael Waldrop, evolutionists are greatly surprised by the discovery of a gigantic "hole in space" located in the northern sky. Apparently there is a 300 million light year size gap in the distribution of galaxies in this region.

# 33 This means that there is an area in space which is so vast that a beam of light (which travels at 186,000 miles per second) would need 300 million years to travel from one end of the 'hole' to the other. While this region is itself basically void of galaxies, it should be noted that the outermost edges of this vast expanse contain a disproportionately large number of them.

The evolutionists have every reason to be shocked by a discovery of this magnitude. Such a finding goes against the rationale of their 'big bang theory.' After all, matter flying out from a central point would do so uniformly. It would not deflect in such a manner so as to leave vast areas void of galaxies. Christians on the other hand, need not be surprised by such findings because God has told us in Job 26:7 that "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space."

The First Law of Thermodynamics told us that energy is constant throughout the universe - neither increasing nor decreasing. But Gen.2:2-3 tells us why this is so. Therein we are told that "...on the seventh day He rested from all His work ... He rested from all the work of creating that he had done." Since Gen.1:31 tells us that "...all that He had made ... was very good," it is easy to see that no more energy is needed. As to the second half of the principle in question, we know that energy is not being lost, because, as Heb.1:3 tells us, Jesus is today "sustaining all things by His powerful Word." At the same time, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes the process of degeneration within the universe, is revealed in, among other verses. Ro.8:21. This verse tells us that one day in the future, all "creation will be liberated from its bondage to decay (emphasis added).

Even though I have not yet mentioned them in this section of our study, you can be assured that the biological sciences are not neglected in Scripture. In 1616, William Harvey discovered the importance of the circulatory system. But Lev.17:11 had referred to the paramount nature of blood some 3000 years earlier. As succinctly as possible, this verse says that "...the life of the creature is in the blood." Physical well being is related to the blood's ability to fight infection, which is in turn dependent upon the ability of our bone marrow to manufacture healthy white blood corpuscles. But this was also clearly hinted at by Solomon's admonition to fear the Lord and shun evil because "... this will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones." (Prov.3:8 ) Finally, while the relationship between stress and health has only recently been understood by the medical profession, Prov.14:30 made the connection by telling us that "A mind at ease is life and health."

I have cited these examples of scientific - Scriptural harmony, not in any misguided attempt to prove that the Bible is a substitute for a science textbook. I have done so merely to illustrate the point that true science will not conflict with the Word of God. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find that some future, truly scientific revelation just happens to once again attest to the infinite wisdom and knowledge of our Creator. Not only did God put the laws of nature into effect, but He wrote about them at a time when the minds of most men were devoted to worshipping the sun, the moon, and the stars. By believing that the universe is both eternal and self-sustaining, some of today's evolutionists have apparently not progressed beyond that point.

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 10:31:11 AM
Beware of those who are "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth." (II Tim.3:7) Christians have nothing to fear from open minded truth seeking scientists who are not traumatized by their discoveries; for, along with men like Sir Winston Churchill,

We believe that the most scientific view, the most up-to-date and rationalistic conception will find its fullest satisfaction in taking the Bible story literally... We may be sure that all these things happened just as they are set out in Holy Writ... Let the men of science and learning expand their knowledge and probe with their researches every detail of the records which have been preserved to us from those dim ages. All they will do is fortify the grand simplicity and essential accuracy of the recorded truths. (emphasis added)

# 34 There is nothing wrong with study. God Himself specifically directed us to subdue the Earth. But the pseudoscience which evolutionists would foist upon us is, by their own definition, incapable of determining the truth, and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. Dan.12:4 tells us that in the end time "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." (KJV) In order to carry out God's directive, we are to concern ourselves first and foremost with our understanding of the Most High God as He has revealed Himself to us, and then with the true sciences. Time is to valuable an asset to waste upon the pursuit of the origin of the species in any place other than Genesis chapters 1 & 2.


1) Niles Eldredge - Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism ( New York; Washington Square Press, 1982) pp. 112 & 98, 22, 84, 23, 130 & 10, 130, 21, 149, and 104 respectively

2) ibid p. 82

3) ibid pp. 93-94

4) Henry Morris, Men of Science - Men of God (El Cajon, CA Master Books, 1998 ), p.18

5) ibid p. 75

6) ibid p. 94

7) ibid p. 85

8 ) ibid p. 84

9) ibid p. 86

10) H. S. Thayer - Newton's Philosophy of Nature - Selections From His Writings, "Forward" by John H. Randall Jr., (New York: Free Press, 1953), p. XIV

11) ibid p. 7

12) Morris - op cit. p. 13

13) Tim Dowley, Eerdman's Handbook of the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1977) p. 490

14) Thayer, op cit. pp. 47 & 53

15) ibid pp. 60 & 65-66

16) ibid p. 65

17) Morris - op cit. p. 63; also World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p. 3 (1985 ed.)

18 ) ibid p. 30

19) Thayer, op cit. p. 54

20) World Book Encyclopedia, Vol 14, p. 306 (1985 ed.)

21) Eldredge - op cit. p. 130

Post by: nChrist on August 10, 2007, 10:39:33 AM
22) David Bender and Bruno Leone, Science and Religion: Opposing Viewpoints (St Paul, MN: Green Haven Press, 1985), p. 32

23) Morris - op cit. p. 60

24) Bender and Leone, op cit. p. 53

25) Morris - op cit. p. 13

26) Associated Press, "Ancient Kenya Lake Bed Now a Paleontologists Paradise," Alburquerque Journal (1984)...", p. C12

27) Morris - op cit. p. 52

28 ) Bender and Leone, op cit. p. 72

29) Morris - op cit. p. 67

30) Eldredge op. cit. p. 147

31) Roy E. Peacock - A Brief History of Eternity (Wheaton, IL Crossway Books, 1990) p. 149

32) Funk And Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, 1973 ed. Vol.4, p.306

33) M. Mitchell Waldrop, "Delving the Hole in Space", Science Vol. 214, November 29, 1981, p. 1016

33) Winston Churchill - Thoughts and Adventures (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1972), pp. 293-294




I am not aware of any easy method to obtain this - IN ANY FORMAT. The only method I found involved considerable time and effort. So, if you want a copy of this, the easiest method might be to copy this posting on the forum.

Please make a special note of the copyright near the beginning. Frederick C. Kubicek is the author, and he has graciously allowed anyone to copy and distribute this OUTSTANDING piece of work as long as no money is charged to anyone under any circumstances.

If I find an easier method to obtain this, I'll post it.

Post by: Soldier4Christ on August 10, 2007, 11:20:04 AM
I haven't read all of it yet, but I will be. I read the first three posts and skimmed the rest for right now. This is a great book with lot's of great information and a really great Bible study of the truth of God and His creation. Thanks for posting it. Yes, I will be using many portions of it.