EVOLUTION - GUILTY AS CHARGED

[nChrist]

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)

[nChrist]

# 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)

[nChrist]

# 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."

[nChrist]

# 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).

[nChrist]

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.

[nChrist]

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.

[nChrist]

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.

 
ENDNOTES

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

[nChrist]

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

==========

MY NOTE:

==========

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.