EVOLUTION - GUILTY AS CHARGED

[nChrist]

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

[nChrist]

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)

[nChrist]

# 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)

[nChrist]

# 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)

[nChrist]

# 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)

[nChrist]

# 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."

[nChrist]

# 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.

 
END NOTES

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

[nChrist]

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,

[nChrist]

Chapter VIII
 
IQ TEST

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.)

[nChrist]

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.

[nChrist]

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)

[nChrist]

# 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.

[nChrist]

# 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:

...at 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 "...no 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)

[nChrist]

# 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)

[nChrist]

# 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."

 
END NOTES

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