Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Charles Darwin's Hidden Agenda for Science
The standard, long held view of the connection between Darwin's religion and his theory is wrong. Supposedly he was a Christian who studied at Cambridge to become a minister. But then, during his voyage around the world on the Beagle, the scientific facts persuaded him to believe in evolution and give up his Christian faith. However, an examination of the various influences upon the youthful Charles Darwin reveals an entirely different story.

Family Background.

Charles' grandfather, Erasmus, a successful and wealthy physician in the 18th century, wrote the book, Zoonomia (Laws of Life), which portrays a pantheistic world in which all life and species evolved. Erasmus' close friend, industrialist Josiah Wedgwood I, embraced Unitarian theology. Erasmus' son and Charles' father, Robert Darwin, also a wealthy physician, probably an atheist, married Susannah Wedgwood. Other marriage ties between the two families followed. Not surprisingly, Darwin males generally were freethinkers, following the Unitarian, pantheistic and atheistic views of their principal sires.

The Son, His Father and His Wife.

Charles Darwin, was born in 1809. His dominant, atheistic father, Robert, advised him to conceal his unorthodox beliefs from his wife. Should he predecease her this would spare her from unnecessary grief because of her spouse's dying an unbeliever. Charles never spoke publicly about his religious views. However, before he married Emma Wedgwood in 1839 he told her about his rejection of Christian faith. Though probably not herself evangelical, she was nevertheless pious, and the rather gross unbelief of her husband was painful to her. But during his life and even after his death she protected his reputation by concealing his unbelief.

Charles' Education

Robert Darwin sent his son off to Edinburgh University in 1825. The sixteen-year-old boy found himself in a university community which was in a continual ferment of radicalism of all sorts advanced by dissenters from the Anglican church, freethinkers, anti-Christians and atheists, materialists and evolutionists. Evolution was in the air. Most influential in this phase of Charles Darwin's life was Robert Grant, a dozen years his senior. Holding the medical degree from Edinburgh, he had made himself the leading British authority in invertebrate zoology. Grant was an avowed atheist, and evolutionist, and also a social and political radical. On zoological field trips with Grant young Charles listened to his persuasive private lecturing but kept his own counsel. Deeply interested in biological science, Charles abhorred medicine The sight of blood sickened him. After two years he returned home without a degree.

Disappointed, father Robert Darwin decided to send him off to Cambridge University for a degree in theology, after which he could purchase for him a "living" in an Anglican country church. There he could be a sportsman, a scholar, or an amateur naturalist, supported by a government stipend for life. Charles dutifully signed onto the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England and entered Cambridge. He surely saw the hypocrisy in an atheist father's financing his son's preparation to be a minister of the gospel.

At Cambridge Prof. Adam Sedgwick, a leading English geologist, took Darwin with him on a geology field trip in the south of England. Impressed with the young man's abilities, he predicted that his student would make his mark in science. Though studying for a degree in theology, Darwin put his greatest energies into geology and other natural sciences. Darwin read Archdeacon William Paley's classic book on the evidence for God in the designs of living creatures. Darwin was impressed with the book but devoted the rest of his life to disproving it. Reading the standard theology texts, he concluded that he could accept intellectually the arguments for Christianity. Later, however, with a fellow student he decided that he could not affirm having a divine call to the Christian ministry.On the other hand, naturalist Von Humboldt's reports of his travels to exotic places stirred in Charles a yearning to follow in his steps. Thus when he received his theology degree in 1831, his future was doubtful. With a young friend he was planning a trip around the world when a letter arrived from the Royal Navy inviting him to be the official naturalist on a voyage around the world on H.M.S. Beagle. He accepted and his destiny was sealed.

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

Darwin's Theology and His Theory of Evolution.

On the five-year voyage on the Beagle Darwin's abilities in natural history became apparent. The large collections of specimens of rocks, fossils, plants, fish, marine invertebrates, insects, birds and land animals which he sent back to England made him famous before his return. Shortly after his return to England in December, 1836, Charles moved to London to arrange for the proper use of his specimens and write several books about his observations. He was also reading voraciously, seeking support for his ideas about evolution. Mostly between 1837 and 1840 he filled a number of notebooks with his private brain storming speculations about geology and evolution. Within five months of debarking from the Beagle Darwin had written down his espousal of the theory of evolution of all species. Those early notebooks contained the germinal ideas for most of his research and writing for the next forty years.

His Notebooks also reveal his theological views in those early years from 1837 to 1840. The Creator God of the Bible is discarded, man is degraded to an evolved animal and his mind, thoughts, religion, emotions, language and facial expressions are made into products of evolution. The philosophy of materialism is enthusiastically embraced and human freedom of the will is repudiated. By 1842 Darwin wrote out a lengthy essay in which he gave a detailed summary of his theory of evolution.

Darwin's Duplicity and Opportunism.

During the five years on the Beagle Darwin was a close companion of Captain Robert FitzRoy. FitzRoy was an opinionated conservative Anglican. It is interesting indeed that on the long voyage young Charles maintained a reputation for being a biblical literalist. Yet as we have seen, after only five months or less off the ship Darwin had written down some of his basic ideas on evolution and his repudiation of the God of the Bible.It is incredible that his thinking could have undergone total transformation from biblical literalism in that short time. No, on board ship he must have acted like an orthodox Christian in order to please his opinionated captain. In the period from 1837 to 1840 Charles Darwin's reputation was rising, promoted especially by Adam Sedgwick who sponsored him in the Royal Society. Yet to Sedgwick evolution was an abomination, so Charles had to keep his chief love absolutely to himself. In one of his notebooks he wrote out a verbal strategy he could use to conceal his belief in evolution. If Sedgwick had guessed what his young protege was thinking, Darwin's career would have suffered a severe setback. Yet he yearned to tell his associates about his theory. It was during this time of great inner stress before 1840 that he began to suffer from severe headaches and stomach trouble. Darwin kept his ideas from general circulation for some years until his reputation in the scientific community was established. Nevertheless, he delayed publication of the Origin of Species for 17 years, offering in that book only a few hints on the subject of human evolution. He delayed the publication of his book on The Descent of Man another 12 years until 1871. Always the consummate social and political strategist, he waited for decades for the right intellectual and religious atmosphere and political climate to develop which would assure his victory when his infamous book, The Origin of Species, was published in November, 1859.

When another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, in 1858 sent Darwin a short essay outlining the essence of Darwin's own theory, his hand was forced. An arrangement was made for joint credit to be given the two men, but Darwin wrote the definitive book. In the fifteen months of the crash writing project, Darwin's illnesses all converged on him. He could scarcely write twenty minutes without excruciating stomach pains, and he suffered from violent headaches and vomiting. During the two weeks when the book was being printed and bound for sale, Charles was undergoing treatment in the hydropathic clinic at Ilkley. In a letter to fellow scientist J.S. Dalton he wrote: "I have been very bad lately; having had an awful 'crisis' one leg swelled like elephantiasis--eyes almost closed up--covered with a rash & fiery Boils...it was like living in hell." Could it be that God was trying to tell Darwin something? He would not listen. A lost soul ruled by satanic power, he had to be a man of iron will wholly given over to a consuming vision.

Darwin's Hidden Agenda for Science.

There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin's published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles' "bulldog," anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was "sharpening [his] claws," ready to "disembowel" any clergymen who criticized Darwin's Origin of Species.

It is clear that Charles Darwin's hidden agenda for science was to drive out of the thinking of all scientists any concept of divine special creation, divine intervention into the world, and divine teleology (purpose, plan or goal) in the natural world. This amounts to redefining science wrongly to make it an automatic weapon against Christian faith. Darwin's theory has often been criticized by secular scientists, but his agenda for science has long enjoyed universal success in the secular establishment.

The Responsibility of Christians

We Christians must as a part of our faith boldly reassert the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all things, including science. If the Lord Jesus delays His coming, those whom God calls to serve Him in science, education or other fields of scholarship must labor to get science correctly redefined. We must, in the name of truth and correct science, demand a level playing field so that all kinds of believers or unbelievers may work in science. Thus all will have the opportunity to demonstrate by the quality of their work the value for science of their faith or non-faith. The persecution of Christians in the scientific-educational-scholarly establishment because of their faith must be stopped. Christians must be free to glorify their God and Redeemer in all areas of endeavor. Especially this is so wherever tax dollars are involved.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Teaching of Evolution in the Science Curriculum
Controversy in Science

Controversy has not been uncommon in the history of the scientific enterprise. Generally the controversies among scientists have centered around questions of the interpretation of scientific data and the validity of theories old or new. It is central to the scientific method that all hypotheses must be so constituted as to be subject to rejection on the basis of empirical evidence. Therefore, when a new hypothesis has been put forward it is immediately a potential object of controversy, of a process of "natural selection," so to speak. The hypothesis, in order to survive and become established as an accepted scientific theory, must survive numerous empirical tests. It may be a candidate to replace another long accepted theory, a theory in which some or many scientists have vested interests of one kind or another. Or other new hypotheses may be in competition with it. Controversy may well result, with more or less heated disagreement between two or more parties. Empirical science provides the means by which such a controversy can be moved toward resolution, and this involves the objective examination of all pertinent data and all logical implications of the data, with willingness to discuss all sides of the controversy in a logical, rational way. Professional scientists are bound to conduct themselves under such circumstances in a manner which reflects respect for those with whom they disagree. In scientific circles it is commonly assumed that all parties are motivated as professional members of the scientific community by a commitment to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Controversial Issues in the Science Classroom:
the Creation / Evolution Controversy

Controversy should not be excluded from the science classroom, but should be one of the means used to give students a correct understanding of the processes of science. It is necessary that controversial issues which arise in connection with the science curriculum be handled in the classroom in a way which helps all students, without compromising their personal beliefs, to mature in their understanding of how to relate to and work with others with whom they may have important differences, even strongly conflicting convictions. The procedures in the public schools for handling some controversial issues in the science curriculum have already been established by state legislation and actions by state boards of education. In California, for example, the correct procedure for teaching about reproductive biology and special accommodation for the laboratory dissection of animals are mandated in the California Education Code sections 51550 and 32255.1 [Chapter 65, Statutes of 1988], respectively. There has been, however, no definitive policy adopted for the treatment in the science classroom of theories of origins, i.e., the evolution/creation controversy. Private secular and religious schools have up to now enjoyed complete freedom to teach about theories of origins in any manner they may choose, without state influence or intervention.

All subjects included in the science curriculum must be taught in a manner which is at once scientifically, pedagogically, and legally and constitutionally correct. On each of these aspects much controversy has arisen in recent decades, between factions of the general public, in the ranks of scientists, and among educators. Often more heat than light has been generated, and as a result many teachers are fearful in their treatment of the subject of theories of origins, often compromising science and correct pedagogy, as well as the constitutional rights of students. Therefore, it is important that this Science Framework delineate unambiguously the fundamental principles and guidelines for the correct treatment of the origins issue in the science curriculum materials and classrooms. For this purpose the following is provided:

Erroneous Past Handling of
Theories of Origins in the Classroom

In the public controversy, legislation, and legal actions characterizing the past two decades of creation/evolution issue in the tax-funded educational system there have been numerous errors on the part of virtually all parties involved. Principal errors include the following:

    1. Many secular scientists and educators who are personally committed to an evolutionary view of nature have insisted that all science education, especially biological science must be taught by indoctrination in evolution as a fact of earth history. They have also insisted that students be taught that belief in divine creation can have no part in their interpretation of the observed data of science or in their classroom discussions of the data and theories of science.

    2. Conversely, many parents and other citizens, some active in science or science oriented professions, have insisted that creation, "creation science," or "scientific creationism" should be included in the science curriculum. Some have even attempted to convert this into a totally secular scientific subject, devoid of any religious content.

    3. Most science textbooks and other curriculum materials in the past have offered no critical evaluation of evolutionary concepts, nor informed students of the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary theories.

    4. Boards of education, administrators, and teachers have sometimes attempted to muzzle students in the classroom by forbidding them to discuss their reasons for believing in creation and rejecting evolution.

    5. There continue to be many reports by students of science teachers' ridiculing the concept of divine creation and those who believe in it.

The above cited actions are errors for the following reasons:

    1. There is no place in science and, therefore, no place in science education for indoctrination, dogmatism or authoritarianism.

    2. There is no place in science and, therefore, no place in science education for the protection of concepts and theories from criticism.

    3. Science properly defined offers no justification for tying science exclusively to a materialistic philosophy or world view, making it by definition opposed to religious faith which holds to divine special creation. Thus, there is no justification for teaching that the evolutionary view of nature is the only one which is admissible for scientists.

    4. Dogmatism, protectionism and exclusivism in the teaching of evolutionary ideas put the State, through its agents, the public school teachers, in the position of attempting to change the religious faith of students who believe in divine special creation. But the State has no compelling interest in changing the religious beliefs of students. By attempting to do so, the State violates the rights guaranteed to all students by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

When the State teaches students who hold to special divine creation as a part of their sincerely held religious faith, in effect, "You were not created, but you evolved from ancient ape-like animals," the State is really saying to them, "Your religious faith in the God of creation is a falsehood, and you cannot be `scientific' until you change your faith." This is a gross violation of the First Amendment's Free Exercise guarantee. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to all students equal treatment under the law and, therefore, a quality science education which is devoid of gratuitous insult to their religious faith or to them as religious believers.

It is obvious that the above cited errors must be corrected in the California public schools.

The Teaching of Evolution

The following policies are to be implemented in all curriculum materials and classroom teaching of science:

1. References to concepts, interpretations and theories relating to evolution must be properly qualified to reflect both the support and lack of support for them. Until such time as this is effected in the adoption of new curriculum materials, all dogmatism in current curriculum materials is to be identified and properly qualified by the teacher.

2. Students are to be given, in curriculum materials in the classroom, adequate access to scientific evidence and opinion, from the secular scientific literature and other qualified scientific literature, which reveal the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary concepts as well as their successes and strengths.

3. Students are to be given the correct understanding of the relation of evolution to science, specifically, that although a majority of scientists may espouse an evolutionary view of the universe, life, species and man, their belief is not required by the definition of science for people to be scientists, teachers, or students of science. It is not acceptable to teach that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," other than as the opinion expressed by one scientist, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

4. Students may not be forbidden to question or criticize any scientific theory or interpretation in the classroom. When evolutionary concepts are discussed in the curriculum materials or in the classroom, students should be given appropriate opportunity to introduce alternative, anti-evolutionary interpretations for discussion of the pertinent scientific evidence in the classroom. Differences of opinion, discussion and debate are proper in the teaching of science, because they help develop the critical thinking of students. The discussion of theological doctrines, however, is not appropriate in the science classroom. On the other hand, it is also wrong to advocate or promote a materialistic philosophical world view in the name of science.

5. The principal goal of science instruction is to produce students who know how to examine and evaluate all evidence pertinent to a question, dispassionately and logically, and who have a commitment to practice this process consistently in the search for knowledge and truth. Able to distinguish opinion from scientific fact, these students will understand that the final authority in science is the observable, reproducible scientific data. They will understand the relationship between the hypotheses, theories and laws of science. They will appreciate the place and importance in science of creative imagination or inspiration. And, finally, they will understand the freedom of all practitioners of science to espouse their own personal belief systems and to draw on them for inspiration, motivation and goals in their professional endeavors.

6. A correct, philosophically neutral definition of science is to be taught. This means that students are to understand that science is essentially a method for studying and understanding the working of the natural world and for testing all ideas about the natural world, and that neither the definition of science or the rules of its methodology restrict what a scientist, teacher or student of science may or may not believe. The students are to understand that all have freedom to function in science, provided simply that they with integrity perform in accord with the rules of the method of empirical research.

7. The public schools and teachers cannot be mandated to teach about creation in the science classroom, since creation is basically a theological concept. However, it is not allowable to ignore the fact that the concept of divine special creation is one that has been held historically and at present by many scientists. Nor is it permissible to teach or imply that a person in any way violates the canons of science by believing in creation and even conducting his or her scientific thought and research guided by that belief.

8. It is proper, even necessary, for the teacher to identify the two competing explanations of origins and to outline the fundamental assumptions of each perspective. This prepares students to make their own personal examinations of the controversy. Some of the basic assumptions are as follows:

    Evolution

    1) All basic biological designs and systems are the products of purely spontaneous materialistic processes, devoid of any intelligently directed plan, purpose or goal.

    2) All species living and extinct are related by common descent from one or a few original simple organisms.

    3) Biological variation has been effectively unlimited, in the sense that some original protist could evolve into the human species in three or four billion years.

    Creation

    1) All basic biological designs and systems are, indeed, the products of intelligent, purposeful design and special creation.

    2) All species living and extinct have existed in groups or "kinds" which have always been separate from each other, separated by uncrossable genetic boundaries.

    3) Biological variation is limited within the boundaries of the originally created kinds.

A science teacher is not "teaching religion in the science class" by outlining for the students the basic assumptions of organic evolution and the creation perspective for biology. This simply identifies the two alternative views in a rational way so that students can then pursue the controversy by further personal study, if they so desire. It also lays a proper groundwork for any classroom discussion of scientific evidence related to that controversy. And, finally, it gives students a correct basis for understanding that both perspectives involve certain faith propositions. This, in turn, helps engender in the students mutual respect for others with whom they may have very fundamental disagreements on matters both scientific and philosophical.

9. Since this Science Framework mandates a science curriculum which is empirical and encompasses a sequence of intermediate objectives and final objectives which stand related in a hierarchy of dependent facts, concepts and theories, it is in accord with the historical and logical process by which scientific knowledge has advanced. In this context, theories of origins are high level concepts which, for their understanding and critical evaluation, require much underlying knowledge of science and a degree of intellectual sophistication. Therefore, the concept of organic evolution should not be presented in textbooks or studied in the classroom until the high school level science courses. To present evolutionary concepts in elementary and junior high school courses without a thorough discussion of their empirical basis, is only to indoctrinate the students with authoritarian ideas. This is not in accord with either the method of empirical science or proper pedagogy, especially in a pluralistic society in which the creation/evolution issue is so controversial.

[Soldier4Christ]

Where does Knowledge Come From?
"...Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Colossians 2:3

Adam was created with knowledge--with the knowledge that he was a creature of God, with a language with which to think and to talk with God and receive more knowledge from God. Adam naturally and spontaneously believed God, experienced His love and care, and responded with loving obedience. Adam learned by experience also, as he served and had fellowship with his Creator in the Garden, but he always had the perfect wisdom and personal counsel of God to guide him in his experience and learning about the world and its plants and animals which God had created.

Thus, our first parent was also the first scientist, for a scientist learns about the natural world by means of human experience. But for Adam this kind of learning came second and was always subject to and guided in accordance with the knowledge that God gave him as they communed from day to day. God had commanded Adam to "subdue" the natural world and "have dominion" over all its creatures. This required that Adam learn about the world so that he could exercise dominion over it for the glory of God, intelligently and obediently. (Genesis 2:19-20)

The Fall and Its Consequences

Adam could learn all he needed to know in a good and perfect world if he continued to believe and obey his Creator. But there was a knowledge forbidden to him, the knowledge of "good and evil." Our first parents, exercising their free will, did disobey and immediately knew both good and evil. They had performed a single experiment with disobedience which plunged them and the race which sprang from them into a history of rebellion, wickedness and unbelief, just the opposite of God's will for mankind created in His image. The Fall resulted in the corruption and ruin of every human capacity and attribute, including his intellect, affections, moral capacity and will. (Romans 5:12ff)

Down through the millennia since Eden, time and sin's degenerative effects caused the knowledge of God to become distorted and fade from the collective consciousness of the race (Romans 1:19ff). But the defaced divine image in man caused him still to desire to know. Cut off by his unbelief and sin from receiving knowledge by the divine Word, man was shut up to learning by his own experience, by science. So great was the power of even the ruined human intellect, that knowledge flourished, secular knowledge apart from God and from His Word. But such knowledge, though it may bear some good temporal fruits, is really darkness, not light. Into the darkness God from time to time sent light, by His Word, delivered by His inspired prophets. Some in every generation responded in faith to the message of grace, but the mass of humanity continued to stumble on in the darkness of their secular knowledge. God spoke through the patriarchs, through the nation of Israel and her prophets, and finally through His son, Jesus Christ, whom He sent into the world to become man, the God-man, who gave Himself and died the death for sin on a cross, was buried and rose again from the dead--all to redeem the rebel people from their darkness and sin (Hebrews 1:1-3).

Modern Science and the Two Streams of Faith

After Christ's resurrection and ascension the Christian Church bore witness to the Truth, and following the dark period of the Middle Ages, this truth of the Gospel broke forth in the renewed brightness of the 16th century Reformation. The Word of God, the Bible, illuminated many nations and wrought a transformation of western society. One of the fruits of biblical faith was the founding of modern science, which depended upon the Christian concept of an infinite-personal God who created a real, lawful and knowable world which was worthy of systematic study. Modern science was founded by men who believed the gospel and who believed in the Creator-God of the Bible. They believed that they were studying God's creation for His glory. They were not stumbling in the darkness of the ancient pagan philosophers who did not have the light of the Word of God concerning creation. They believe that there were two paths to knowledge, the way of human experience, i.e., science, and the way of faith, i.e., the written Word of God. But the latter, the Bible, was held to be of supreme authority. They were men of faith as well as men of science.

One medieval philosopher and theologian of the Catholic Church, Anselm, set down the basis of man's knowledge in the 11th century when he wrote, "I believe so that I may understand." He was saying that man must first establish a right relationship with the Creator by faith, believing what God says, before he can rightly understand the world and his own place in it. Reason must be subject to faith that is informed by the Spirit of god. This expressed the view of knowledge adopted by the Protestants who came out of the Reformation. It is the biblical view, revealed theology, which is received by faith in the biblical revelation. (I Corinthians 2:9-16)

Some two centuries later Thomas Aquinas, chief of Catholic theologians, made faith subject to autonomous human reason. Man must first establish by reason the logical proof, for example, of the existence of God. Then faith would be justified. Reflection upon the nature of things could lead to the knowledge of God and His relationship to His creatures apart from the Bible, and faith is thus sustained by reason. This is natural theology, which might be characterized by the maxim, "I understand so that I may believe." Human reason was held to be autonomous, independent.

The Faith Undergirding Darwinism

So there were two streams of faith--in human reason and in divine revelation--which competed for the western mind. Gradually, after the Reformation period, faith in divine revelation receded and faith in autonomous human reason advanced. In science the competition between the two philosophical grounds for the scientific enterprise came to a decisive climax in the publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Darwin had rejected the sovereign God of the Bible, Creator and providential Ruler and Sustainer of the universe. He purposed to remove from science any concept of divine plan, purpose or design in the world, any possibility past, present or future, of divine intervention in the world. And Darwin succeeded. Science soon began to be remolded after his model and men of faith were first silenced and then excluded from the Establishment, although some silent ones and a very few vocal men of faith remained.

Most practitioners of science today hold that the only way to knowledge about the natural world is science. They deny, therefore, that divine revelation in the Bible can afford to man any true knowledge about nature. They include that denial in their definition of science, but this is an error, a distortion of science. It cannot be proved that science is the only source of knowledge about the natural world. It cannot be proved by science that the biblical revelation about the origin of the world is not true. Science cannot prove that divine revelation is not a source of true knowledge, particularly concerning origins. Belief in science as the only way to such knowledge is a faith, just as much as is faith in divine revelation. Faith in autonomous human reason is a faith, even as is faith in divine revelation. And neither one is science.

Failure and Hope

The tragic fact about the supposed progress for science accomplished by Darwin is that it put modern back with the ancient, pagan scholars who struggled in the darkness produced by their reliance upon human reason coupled with ignorance or rejection of divine revelation. Sadly, much of the professing Christian Church has regressed with secular science back into the same darkness. Even the so-called evangelical churches are being drawn into compromise with it, so great is the desire to be respected by the secular scientific Establishment.

Yet there is hope, for the Word of God is powerful and living. The people of God are beginning to stir, beginning to see their responsibility to bear witness to the whole counsel of God. They are becoming willing to stand for divine truth against secular error, however impressive its scholarly credential may be. Increasing numbers of Christians, many scientists among them, are coming out into the open with a firm declaration of their rejection of evolution and their faith in the biblical record of creation. They are unashamed to own their faith in the Jesus Christ, the unchangeable divine Lord of His creation and the coming Judge. They intend to see God and the Moral Law again honored in the nation's public life.

[Soldier4Christ]

The World Prepared for Darwin, and the World he Made
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." "God...has in these last days spoken...by his son...by whom also He made the worlds." Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:1, 2

Ancient and Medieval Views of Origins

The biblical revelation alone proposes that the infinite-personal Spirit, God the Creator, is the only eternally existent entity. Only the biblical faith holds that everything else, the entire natural order and spiritual order, had a beginning, was created from nothing. All other ancient religions postulate an eternally existent natural order of some kind to which a God or gods may or may not be attached. They also have, in their beginning or somewhere along the way, incorporated, assumed or implied some kind of evolutionary development in the world. Ancient Greek philosophers, including Anaximander (600 B.C.), Empedocles (450 B.C.) and Democritus (400 B.C.) assumed evolutionary processes of one kind or another. The Hebrew Scriptures (1400-400 B.C.) taught special creation, and the New Testament revelation strongly reinforced faith in creation.

During the Medieval Period in Europe the literal biblical picture of creation apparently predominated in religious and philosophical thought, and the last great theologian of that period, Aquinas, espoused a strictly literal understanding of the Mosaic creation account. The Protestant Reformation theologians continued this traditional view, and the early founders of modern science generally believed in creation. Nevertheless, in Catholic circles some evolutionary thinking was being published, and even in the 18th century some philosophers and scientists were playing with theories of evolutionary development.

Evolutionism in Scientific Thought Before Darwin

During the 17th and 18th centuries, as such sciences as astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology and biology began to germinate and develop, although most scientists were Christian believers, some started to espouse a Deistic view of the world. According to Deism, god created the world and then walked away to let it run according to built-in laws. This idea of a self-running, evolving mechanical world gradually took over astronomy and geology. The idea soon appeared in biology. By the mid-19th century some scientists were openly anti-biblical and promoting evolutionary ideas. Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles, published long before his grandson's birth several ideas basic to later evolutionary theory. By the early 19th century Jean de Lamarck in France, openly anti-biblical in spirit, had proposed a theory of evolutionary progress by the inheritance of acquired characters. These pressures against the traditional biblical view of special creation led the English Archdeacon and theologian, William Paley, to publish in 1802 his classic book, Natural Theology. In this book he skillfully supported special creation by appeal to a wealth of evidence for intelligent, purposeful design in living things.

The Attack On the Bible In the Churches

In the church world profound changes were also taking place. The great state churches in England and Europe which came out of the Reformation had for the most part declined from their original biblical faith and fervor, becoming approved and tax-supported social institutions. But even more damaging for the future of the Christian churches was the beginning in the early 19th century of a concerted attack upon the Bible. Initiated in the German universities and theological schools by scholars who claimed to be studying the Bible scientifically, this "Higher Criticism" was actually a program for destroying the credibility of the bible. One of its major products, the Documentary Hypothesis of the Books of Moses, made out Moses' writings to be "pious" forgeries. Supposedly the first five books of the bible were written 500 to 1,000 years after poor old Moses died. The real authors allegedly were assorted persons and groups who had pet religious and political axes to grind. One assumed group of authors used "Jehovah" as the name for God, another group the name, "Elohim," a third group promoted the law (Deuteronomy means second giving of the law), and a fourth crowd composed of priests promoted their professional interests. So the modern critics cut up Moses' books into piles of scraps which were called the J (for Jehovah), E (for Elohim), D (for Deuteronomy) and P (for Priestly) "documents," although no such documents were ever found. The higher critical "scholars" claimed that over a period of centuries these bits and scraps were put together by unknown editors until the present books of Moses resulted.

The higher critical analysis of the "documents" was made under the assumption that the religion of the Hebrews slowly evolved from polytheism to henotheism (one-God-among- many) to monotheism, and that all references to supernatural activity in the Bible are spurious. But the facts of history and archaeology contradict these assumptions. It is obvious that anybody who accepts the assumptions and conclusions of Higher Criticism of the Bible can have no respect for faith in the bible as the authoritative Word of God. This view of the Scriptures spread from Germany to England to America in the mid-19th century. Theologians holding this anti-Christian view became professors in seminaries and Christian and secular universities. Soon hundreds of young ministers tainted with this unbelief were filling pulpits in Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal and Lutheran churches. This "Modernism" began to conquer the old-line denominations in England and America.

The rejection of the historic biblical faith and its replacement by an evolutionary view of the Bible, set the stage for the acceptance of Darwinism by the churches. Other social changes were preparing the way for Darwin. The Industrial Revolution which began in the latter part of the 18th century greatly increased wealth, promoting worldliness and materialism among the general public and the upper classes, engendering resistance to the restraints of biblical morality. Darwinism sold to a Prepared World All of these factors--the materialistic philosophy of scientists, the attack in church circles against the historical and scientific validity of the Bible, and the growth of wealth, worldliness and materialism--these had eaten away the spiritual substance of nominally Christian western culture and society. The Christian character of Victorian society was really a shell, empty and ready to be filled with a new idea or faith which would support and justify the surrender of the former faith. Thus when Charles Darwin, in 1859, finally rushed into print the theory which he had persistently developed and cautiously promoted among his scientific peers for over twenty years, he became the super-salesman of an idea whose time had come. His book sold out over night and had to be reprinted. Its influence was immediate and sweeping, although debated continued for decades. Within a few years the scientific Establishment was largely converted to Darwinism or at least to evolutionism. His book, Origin of Species, became perhaps the most influential of all time, outside of the Bible, and its effects have been distinctly the opposite of those the Bible had in the world.

Now that a world prepared for Darwin had received his work with applause, what were the effects of the conversion of thinking about man nature? One thing that is clear is that Darwinism reinforced and accelerated the very changes that had prepared the way for its reception. Science was rather quickly monopolized for materialistic philosophies. The attack on the Bible inside the religious community was reinforced and advanced by the incorporation of Darwinism into the theology of main-line Protestant denominations as well as into the thinking of many theologians and priests in the Roman Catholic Church.

As a result the divine authority of the Bible was systematically undermined in these churches, unbiblical ideas supplanted the Truth of the Gospel, and spiritual life declined. Finally, the general drift of society into worldliness, materialism, immorality and social-political chaos continued as reasons for faith and concern for the spiritual values of life declined in the minds of the common people. In our century there is no question that Darwinian evolution lies in the foundations of both Nazism-Fascism and Communism (Marxism-Leninism). Hitler's vision of the superior, conquering super-race and Communism's vision of materialistic, economically determined man evolving toward perfection in the collectivist environment both either flow from or are reinforced by Darwinism. And what of the Western world's present march toward statism and ultimate socialist world government? Darwin's evolved and evolving man is the subject of all of these schemes for people control and exploitation.

What Is the Remedy?

The remedy for this social-political-religious degeneration is the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ and the Law of God. The doctrine of man created in the image of God must be allowed to compete in the public as well as in the private sector with Darwin's doctrine of evolved man. The responsibility of sinful man before a Holy God must be preached to a wicked, unbelieving world. And the believing Church must take up its full responsibility to do this evangelism for the glory of the soon-returning King. Is it too late? No, it is never too late to obey God in this world which He created, rules over, and will judge.

[Soldier4Christ]

Original Sin in the Garden of Science?
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding have all they that do his commandments; His praise endureth forever." Psalm 111:10

Most secular scientists probably don't believe in sin, but they are guilty, I think, of a great "original sin" against science, their God. This great sin has its roots not in science, but in various materialistic and humanistic philosophies, no doubt. But the Fall of the scientific Establishment into this sin was completed by the work and writings of Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century. To understand the exceeding sinfulness of this transgression of secular scientists we need to define science.

Definition: Science is the systematic extension of human experience (by intent, methodology and instruments) for the purpose of learning more about the natural world and for the critical testing and potential falsification of all hypotheses and theories about the natural world.

Common sense rules for the scientific method flow logically from the definition of science. One of these rules may be called "the central policy of science." It is the requirement that all hypotheses and theories must be so constructed that they can be subjected to empirical testing, with a view to falsifying those that are false. From a good scientific hypothesis it is possible to deduce many logical consequences, predictions which are very demanding and restrictive concerning what is possible and what is not possible in the natural world. These predictions are then the basis for new experiments or observations which confirm or contradict the predictions. If a particular prediction is confirmed, some corroboration for the hypothesis has been gained. If the prediction is contradicted, the hypothesis has failed to pass a test. After the contradiction of a number of predictions, the hypothesis is considered to be falsified, proved to be false. It needs to be modified or replaced by another hypothesis. This is the way science progresses and is continually corrected.

Another characteristic of science to be noted in the definition of science is that it makes no reference whatsoever to the philosophical or religious commitment of the scientist. For example, a person can be a good scientist and be a Buddhist, Protestant fundamentalist, theological liberal, Roman Catholic, atheist, or agnostic, provided he is willing honestly and consistently to submit his methodology, data, and conclusions to critical review by his peers. Nobody has the slightest justification in the canons of science for criticizing the scientist's work on the basis to his philosophy or religion. And this includes belief in either evolution or creation, as well as the adoption of a neutral stance with respect to the origins issue.

So what is the great original sin of the evolutionary science Establishment? It is the utterly heinous act of injecting their philosophy of materialism into the definition of science. Once this was done and widely accepted, science was distorted. It became unprofessional for a scientist to entertain any concept of teleology (i.e., purpose or plan) in the natural world. In his major writings Darwin persistently fought against all teleology, against any possibility of plan, purpose, or intelligent design in biology. In the Origin of Species he often used theological arguments against special creation and against any possibility of divine intervention into the natural order. And virtually the entire scientific and intellectual community was soon conquered by a definition of science which had been falsely bent out of shape and directed against God by the monkey wrench of materialistic philosophy.

A principle result of the universal acceptance of the jimmied definition of science was first the silencing of scientists who believe in creation, then their gradual expulsion, and finally the virtual exclusion of believers in creation from the ranks of scientists. and it has long been forgotten that believers in the God of Creation actually laid much of the foundations of modern science.

So now evolution, the materialistic explanation of origins, is almost universally held to be the "scientific" explanation of origins. But is evolution really a bona fide scientific theory founded on scientific facts? Is creation in contrast just a religious idea held by blind faith? If evolution is to qualify as science it must be testable, falsifiable. Is it? It is not! There is, in fact, no experimental test which can prove that the grand concept of either evolution or creation is false. This is because both postulate events and processes in the past which were not observed by man and which cannot be reproduced in the laboratory or observed in the field. and the evidence for both is circumstantial, subject to differing interpretations depending upon the assumptions of the interpreters. Sir Karl Popper, considered by many to be the world dean of the logic of science, in his 1976 book, Unended Quest, wrote, "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme--a possible framework for testable scientific theories." And the first point in his definition of "Darwinism" is that of a past history of evolution of all species from a few original organisms.

The category of "metaphysical research programmes" is strongly suggestive of religion. Indeed many writers have noted the religious aspects of the evolutionary belief system. It is good sometimes to boil down concepts to a few words. Evolution attempts to explain the origins of all things in terms of spontaneous materialistic process. Creation is an explanation of origins in terms of intelligent purposeful design. These are two conceptual frameworks which are actually faith propositions. There is no way by scientific observation or experiment to prove or disprove that either one is the correct or incorrect explanation of origins. On the other hand, testable sub-theories can be formed under the conceptual framework of Darwinism (or evolution) and under the conceptual framework of special divine creation.

From what we have considered above there logically follow three propositions which, in my opinion, properly characterize the evolution/creation controversy.

    I. Evolution and creation are equally non-scientific, being non-falsifiable models of the past.

    II. Evolution and creation are equally religious, being logical corollaries to two faith world views, materialism and biblical theism, respectively.

    III. Evolution and creation are equally scientific, for the two groups of believers, from the common pool of scientific data, adduce circumstantial evidence in support of the two explanations of origins.

We can conclude from all this that it is not necessary for either believers in either evolution or creation to compromise their convictions in order to arrive at an equitable solution to the problems of equity, law and Constitutional rights which are raised by the current controversy. there must first of all be agreement that the definition of science does not restrict the religious or philosophical beliefs or commitment of scientists, teachers or students of science. Or if the materialistic scientists cannot repent of their original sin, they must at least agree to stop forcing their definition of science on other who reject it. If this agreement is achieved and properly implemented, the result will be an opening up of the scientific enterprise, science education, indeed, all scholarly disciplines, to the critical evaluation of and competition between explanations, models, and theories based upon the two competing conceptual frameworks or paradigms for studying nature, i.e., spontaneous, materialistic process and intelligent, purposeful design. This agreement will also bring an end to the persecution of scientists, teachers, and students who choose to place their faith in an intelligent Creator rather than in dumb atoms, time, chance and evolution. These results will be good for science, for education, and for people. There will be more potential scientists, better motivated students, and greater intellectual and personal freedom in science and education. Who could possibly find fault with these objectives? Only those who love their "original sin" and intend to use the politics of the scientific Establishment to force their sin upon others.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Relationship of Science to Biblical Faith
1. Science is a human enterprise which leads to knowledge of the natural world. This knowledge is tentative, not absolute, and is subject to revision based upon new empirical data. Science deals with observable, reproducible data.

2. The scriptural revelation provides knowledge about both the natural world and the supernatural. This knowledge is absolute and is not subject to revision based upon empirical data.

3. The origin of the universe, galaxies, solar system, earth, life, species, and man was not observed and cannot be reproduced by man, so questions of origins lie outside of empirical science.

4. Scientists who assume purely natural causes explain the origin of all things may devise materialistic hypotheses to explain origins, but strictly speaking, such hypotheses generally are not hypotheses of empirical science.

5. Data from the present world may be adduced as evidence in support of naturalistic theories about origins, but such evidence is circumstantial. Empirical data can be used neither to prove naturalistic theories of origins, nor to falsify them.

6. Scientists who assume a supernatural cause for origins do not, by definition, propose mechanisms to explain origins.

7. Data from the present world may be adduced as evidence against naturalistic explanations of origins and in support of a supernatural cause, but it cannot prove the case for creation. Neither can empirical data falsify the concept of creation.

8. A correct definition of science makes no reference to the philosophical or religious beliefs of scientists.

9. A person can be a Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian, Roman Catholic, liberal Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic or Atheist, etc., etc., provided he honestly and consistently abides by the rules of the scientific method and submits his methodology, data and conclusions to critical review by his peers. Nobody has any justification in the canons of science for criticizing his science on the basis of references to his philosophical or religious commitment, and this includes believe in either creation or evolution.

10. Christian who are believers in God and in creation should be free to operate in the education, scholarly and scientific world openly as Christians without being subjected to discrimination, repression or persecution because of their faith, their expression of their faith, or the conduct of their professional work under the paradigms provided by their faith world view. The materialists, atheists, humanists and agnostics operate in science openly on the basis of their belief systems, and Christian deserve the same status, that of being accepted on the basis of their performance, not on the basis of their conforming to somebody else's religious or irreligious belief system.

A Biblical Creation Model

Day 1. About ten thousand years ago, more or less, the infinite-personal Spirit, God, created the physical universe and the spiritual creation from nothing by the Word of His power. Earth was dark, formless, except that it was surrounded by water. Light and the day-night cycle were provided, perhaps by a special source of light at the first.

Day 2. The watery envelope around the earth was separated into the seas covering the globe, and a surrounding canopy of water, probably vapor and clouds, with an open atmosphere (the firmament) or the first heaven between.

Day 3. One huge continental mass was lifted up out of the waters. Plant life was created, probably mostly as seeds which germinated and grew at miraculous rates. The species within each created "kind" had the potential for variation to adapt to changing environmental conditions, but only within the genetic boundaries of the crated kinds.

Day 4. The sun, moon, and stars were either created or brought into condition to make them suitable as a basis for telling time, seasons, years, and days. The usage of the words "day" and "night" in verses 14-18 strongly supports the view that the word "day" in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31 means a normal solar day (cf. Ex. 20:8-11).

Day 5. Sea life and flying creatures such as birds and perhaps insects were created.

Day 6. The animal life of the dry land was created. Extinct types such as dinosaurs are included in the term "beast of the earth." The species within each created kind, while less plastic than many of the plants, were nevertheless endowed with the potential to vary considerably within the genetic limits of the respective kinds. Thus they could better survive by adapting to changing environments. When the earth had been populated with the plants and animals necessary to make it habitable for man and a suitable environment in which man could serve God, God created man, the first man Adam, from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life to make him the only creature made in the likeness of God. This means man was created a personal being having the attributes of intellect, affections, moral capacity and will. His duty was to know, love, and obey his Creator. Adam was alone as the only personal creature on earth, but God conversed with him in language given by God. Adam demonstrated his dominion and stewardship over the world as well as the intellectual capacity of primal, unfallen man, by classifying and naming all of the animals and birds which God brought to him. Then Eve, the first woman, was created from the side of Adam, so that all of the race descending from our first parents would find their unity in Adam. When God completed the creation on the sixth day He pronounced it perfect, "very good." Thus Satan had not yet rebelled.

Day 7. On the seventh day the Creator rested from His work of creation.

Subsequently Satan and the fallen angels entered earth and Adam and Eve disobeyed God by listening to Satan and partaking of the forbidden fruit, which was a simple, naked test of obedience. This willful act plunged the entire race into a state of sin and misery and subjected the entire universe to the divine curse which is causing it to degenerate continually, a process which will end with the dissolution of this world and the creation of the new heavens and new earth wherein righteousness dwells. Expelled from Eden, the race multiplied and developed culture, technology, and civilization, but expect for Seth's godly line, without God and always departing from Him. The flood of God's judgment which came in Noah's day was global, destroying the antediluvian world. The major part of the sedimentary geological strata was deposited during the flood year, and the fossils bear testimony to many species of plants and animals which lived before the flood.

Some time after the flood the continents completed their separation and moved into their modern relationships. for several thousand years the earth's crust was unsettled and its climate disturbed. Vast mountain building movements and volcanic lava outpourings changed the surface of the land, and glacial periods buried large areas under thick ice sheets. In the meantime the eight people and the animals preserved in the ark overspread the earth. Some frontier populations degenerated genetically to produce some degraded or aberrant groups who were later absorbed or exterminated. But technology, culture and civilization redeveloped rapidly in the Middle East, building on the considerable body of knowledge and skills brought through the flood by Noah's family. The stage was set for the saga of recorded human history which is portrayed in the clay tablets and artifacts of ancient buried civilizations and in the books of historians. The history of God's dealings with Adam's race and especially with His believing people is recorded in His book, the Bible.

[Soldier4Christ]

Education, medicine, evolution and The Times

Mark Henderson, the science correspondent of The Times (of London, UK) has published a provocative article entitled “Junk medicine: creationism.” His article is an extraordinary mixture of half-science and pseudo-science.

Henderson expresses relief “that our [meaning: British] schools have not had to fight off a lobby [as in the USA] seeking to deny the facts of evolution.” The so-called “facts” that he then expounds are not really facts at all, and many of his observations do not even relate to molecules-to-man evolution.

By the way, a main reason why creation in schools is less of an issue in the UK than America is because UK law (sensibly) does not ban critical examination of Darwinism. The Science National Curriculum in England states that “Pupils should be taught … how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin’s theory of evolution]”.1,2

In the National Curriculum documents, examples in square brackets like the one above (while not mandatory) are considered “fair game,” both in the classroom and in assessment.

While evolution is to be taught in state schools, we believe it is wise for teachers to encourage their pupils to examine Darwinism critically. Henderson, while claiming to endorse “critical thinking,” actually shows what he really thinks about the scientific method when he stated that such a critical attitude to evolution “must be resisted.” My seventeen years of teaching science in state comprehensive schools3 were motivated by encouraging children to think scientifically and critically. The uncritical acceptance of unproven (indeed, unprovable) evolution is contrary to scientific methodology and good science teaching.

The National Curriculum also states that “Pupils should be taught … ways in which scientific work may be affected by the contexts in which it takes place [for example, social, historical, moral and spiritual]” (emphasis added).4 Henderson claims that there are “city academies adding God to science lessons”—presumably a reference to the controversy surrounding a talk given by AiG–USA’s Ken Ham at Emmanuel College, Gateshead a few years ago (see Ken Ham stirs up England). Such schools (and Henderson apparently found many of them) would be fulfilling the terms of the National Curriculum.

Evolutionist advocates like Henderson would benefit from a few National Curriculum science lessons themselves when they turn their attention towards the so-called creationist problems with modern medicine. Henderson, for example, claims that “it is impossible to understand biology, and therefore medicine, without a good grasp of evolution.” What do others say, including evolutionist Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University in the USA? Dr Skell: “I … queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”5

In addition, this Answers in Genesis website contains many detailed articles refuting the supposed evidences cited by Henderson. For example, there is the supposed example of organisms developing an antibiotic resistance that is cited by Henderson as evidence for evolution. However, as we have often pointed out, Darwinism—in the “molecules-to-man” scenario—requires an increase in genetic information at each mutation, which has never been observed to have happened. [See, for example, Dr Tommy Mitchell’s web article Evolution and Medicine.]

The antibiotic resistance of the MRSA bacteria (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, sometimes known as the “Superbug”) is due to mutations destroying the information that allows it to resist antibiotics. There is no increase in information. While Darwinists assume that natural selection is the engine of evolution, in practice evolution would only proceed by natural selection plus information-increasing mutations. True Mendelian natural selection is entirely consistent with a creationist way of interpreting empirical evidence of changes in species.

I would submit that it is somewhat disingenuous that Henderson appeals to the old chestnuts of sickle-cell anaemia and cancer being part of the process driving evolution. (Of course, his views do not provide any comfort to sufferers of those diseases.) Once again, however, he is in error—as neither disease causes increase in genetic evolution, so takes us no further along a Darwinian “goo-to-you” path. (See our article Has evolution really been observed?)

The treatment of these and other medical conditions owes nothing to Darwinian evolution. On the contrary, research into many medical areas has actually been hindered by evolutionary beliefs. Witness, for example, the unnecessary removal of so many organs, carried out solely on the belief that such organs were “vestigial” (remnants supposedly useless after millions of years of evolution). For many years, the thymus gland was held to be a leftover of evolution. Many children had the gland irradiated. We now understand that the thymus gland is important in the development of the immune system.

The labelling of an organ as vestigial does not mean it has no use—it merely means we haven’t discovered the use yet. Evolutionary dogma indeed has caused much needless suffering in this area of medicine.

Dr David Menton, former Associate Professor Emeritus in Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine and now an AiG–USA speaker and writer, says this:

    If evolution were thrown out of consideration, it would have no negative impact [in medicine]—it plays no necessary role in either the teaching or practice of medicine.

    This is not to imply it’s not believed by most or that it doesn’t come up. It does come up from time to time, but from the lectures I’ve attended, when it does come up, it’s mentioned in passing as almost a confession of faith. It doesn’t contribute materially to the topic.

    The professors can’t spend too much time on evolution, as they have too much real medical knowledge to get across to the students. Spending a lot of time on evolutionary speculations just wastes time. If you remove evolution, there’s nothing in the whole realm of empirical science that you can’t pursue.6

We should be glad that the National Curricula in England and Wales embody a more enlightened view of the criticism of Darwinism than curricula in America. If Henderson’s beliefs were more fully embraced by the medical community at large, his unscientific and anti-educational views would set medicine back by years. Thankfully, though, only 48% of the UK public believe evolution, according to the BBC survey quoted by Henderson. At least these British citizens are not completely taken in by Darwinian pseudo-science.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Squashed Mosquito is Dead Forever
Author: Tom Wagner

Have you ever squashed a mosquito? Interestingly, the squashing of a mosquito may help us understand what makes life possible and what makes the spontaneous generation of life impossible.

When a mosquito is slapped, what happens? Obviously it's shape changes and it dies. But what makes it die? All of the thousands of sophisticated chemicals which make up its body are still there, relatively unaltered. At the moment of impact its cellular components are still intact including the all-important DNA. So why is it now dead?

Prior to being smashed, the mosquito was highly organized information. But when hit, it became disordered, causing critical information in the design of its body to become jumbled. There arose confusion in the finely tuned co-ordination of chemistry (including the chemicals involved in its overall structure) which culminated in an overall breakdown, resulting in death. And you thought you just slapped it!

For another example, lets say you were to take 100 million bacteria and concentrate them in the bottom of a test tube. Now if you were to physically lyse (break open) the membrane of each of the cells, insides would spill out, forming a concentrated mixture of incredibly complex "life-giving" chemicals. Yet, even though all of the right 'stuff' for life is there, not even one of the 100 million critters will come back to life, nor would any new creature arise.

If the already complex chemistry of minuscule bacteria cannot reorganize itself back into a living cell, even when concentrated in the test tube environment under carefully controlled conditions, then how could life have evolved in the first place, from basically uncomplicated chemicals in conditions FAR less appropriate than this experimental situation? It simply could never happen!

As with the mosquito, in order for life to exist the chemistry must be specifically organized and controlled in time and as well as space. For a cell to live, it must be surrounded by a sophisticated membrane that allows only certain chemicals in and out, according to when they are needed, not just at any time. Inside the cell, the proportions of an element or compound must be just right, otherwise the whole system may be thrown off balance and the organism will die. Furthermore, the entire living mechanism must be controlled by the fantastically complex genetic structure of DNA.

All this means that, in order for the chemistry to have come together in the first place, the individual atoms must have been purposefully and simultaneously organized by a creator having the knowledge and power to do such a thing. It could not possibly have happened by the right chemicals just "coming together".

It is Jesus, the Son of the Living God, who deserves our praise for the awesome things He has accomplished in this creation of His. There is no other plausible explanation for the complex life we find all around us. Yet this only plausible explanation is the only plausible explanation is the only one not allowed to be discussed in out public schools!

[Soldier4Christ]

A feet of imagination

No story related to human evolution has drawn as much press—and as much imagination—in recent times as the account of family members in Turkey (of Kurdish descent) who walk hunched over, using their hands as well as feet to ambulate. In fact, over a one-week period, more AiG supporters alerted us to this news item than any other we have ever received—by far.1

Initially some scientists thought this bizarre story might have been a hoax, but after studying this family for some time, a TV documentary crew and researchers have concluded that it is not (e.g., the siblings, they discovered, have calluses on their palms). British TV (BBC 2) will broadcast a documentary on this unusual family tonight, and the concern is that these people might be portrayed as “freakish” and perhaps less-than-human because of the evolutionary connection some researchers will make to man’s supposed knuckle-dragging ape-like ancestors.2

Indeed, some evolutionists are claiming that this ability by members of this family to walk with hands and feet helps prove that an ape-like ancestor of man once walked on all fours. Evolutionists generally agree that about 3–4 million years ago, man’s ancestors developed the ability to walk upright. Accordingly, some evolutionists are telling the media that these siblings have reverted to “an instinctive behavior deeply encoded in the brain but abandoned in the course of evolution.”3 This supposedly helps to explain how humans eventually evolved from crawling to walking upright.4

More thoughtful scientists, though, say that there is simply a genetic mutation involved. The siblings appear to suffer from mental retardation (their parents are closely related, perhaps first cousins—but that is not known yet). “In-breeding” can result in genetic defects and abnormalities. That is why the Bible forbids such unions. At the time of Moses, it was declared (in the book of Leviticus) that close relatives could not marry, whereas it was not a problem for Cain, for example, to marry his sister, because both were the offspring of Adam and Eve, who were created physically perfect. Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes that would have caused deformities in their children since the effects of sin and the Curse would not have been great in their offspring’s physical bodies (but over time deformities would increase as generation after generation passed on genetic mistakes). See Cain’s wife—who was she?

Evolutionary scientists who use this modern-day example of a genetic mistake leading to mental retardation (so that they can try to make a better case for evolution) are the ones who are stooping low and grasping at straw(men). It shows just how weak the evolution worldview must be. Furthermore, these unfortunate people in Turkey are being exploited by the secular media as something of freaks and throwbacks to evolution (almost as if they are not fully human), when they should instead be recognized as descendants of Adam and Eve and created in God’s image—but who have suffered from the effects of the Curse (Genesis 3:15).
References and notes

   1. Dozens of ministry friends did so using the “Report newsworthy media items” function on this website. Return to text.
   2. A producer claimed that she was not intending this program to be “voyeuristic” and that it would be “sensitive” toward the family. She also made this curious comment: “We thought it [the quadrupedal family] raised all kinds of fascinating scientific, and many other, questions. I think the reason it's created such a fuss because bipedality is something that defines us as human beings—separate and distinct from beasts -- and their existence is challenging philosophically.You only have to look at the Bible, for instance, to see how the word 'upright' is loaded with meaning about purity, morality etc. That's ingrained very deeply in us” (scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2006/03/statement_from_a_producer_of_t.php). Return to text.
   3. As summarized by Donna Friesen, NBC-TV news correspondent. Return to text.
   4. Gorillas and chimps walk on their knuckles, however—the Turkish siblings use their palms. Return to text.

[Soldier4Christ]

All I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Soldier4Christ]

Introduction to Creation Biology

Part 1

Many people first encounter the issue of origins in the subject of biology.  Secondary and college students are exposed to an evolutionary approach to biology in school or college classes.  The general idea ofevolution has become an important part of the value system of our culture, thus it has influenced all subjectareas in public education.  The issue of the origin of living things is important because it says something about what it means to be human.  Are we just extra-intelligent animals, or are we uniquely created for adivine purpose?  Some attempt to combine these two ideas.  This brings up challenging questions on howChristian values and beliefs relate to science.  Evolutionary ideas have been entrenched into biology,geology, and astronomy.  But for many years evolutionary theories have been challenged occasionally byevolutionist scientists who are nonchristians, evolutionist scientists who are Christians, and by othersincluding myself who reject evolution and hold to Biblical creation.  Certain aspects of the Biblical teachingson creation have direct implications contrary to accepted ideas of biological evolution.  Yet, I would say thatcreationism is not contrary to science, if the issues are understood correctly.

This article is written to focus on some of the most important aspects of understanding biology from acreationary point of view.  It will be in several parts.  After studying the issue of creation and evolution for some years, spending many hours in university libraries, and havingdiscussions with individuals of varied points of view, this is my attempt to pull together some main ideas.  All of the ideas from creationism which follow are in need of further research and refinement.  Some of thefollowing is based on creationist publications, some is based on personal correspondence with certaincreationist biologists.  Contrary to a common evolutionist misconception, there are plenty of young-agecreationists with graduate degrees in the sciences.  There are too many to ignore, though compared to thescientific community (practicing scientists and university professors) they are a small minority.  As formyself, biology is definitely not my major field but I offer this information to anyone interested.  I hope thatthe following will help avoid some misunderstandings of creationism that are very common, and help thosejust starting to learn about the issues.

The Biblical term "Kind" and modern Biology

Any biology course would teach about the Linnaean Classification system. This is a hierarchical systemthat places all living things in various groups based on important characteristics they have. The Linnaean system, from the largest category grouping down to the smallest, includes the following: Kingdom, phylum,class, order, family, genus, and species. Genesis 1 says that living things multiplied "according to theirkind." The implication of Genesis is that living things cannot cross the boundary of "kind." Living things can change and adapt to their environment to some degree, but there is a limit to how far this change cango. Just where is this limit? This is an important question that creationists are researching. The limit is notat the species level, that would be the equivalent of saying that living things are all created a certain way by God and they do not change. Creationists do not believe this, however. Creationist biologists wouldsay that the biblical term "kind" does not correspond in any simple way to any term from the Linnaean classification system. Sometimes creationists would put "kind" at either the genus or family levels,depending on what organism you are discussing. This would represent the limit of change. This leads to aview of Genesis that agrees very well with what modern biology and with what selective breeding tell usfrom experience. Evolution would imply that living things would go beyond reproducing "according to theirkind" and would actually produce new kinds over many generations. Evolution requires large changes thatwe do not see occurring in the living world (such as from fish to amphibian for example).

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

In a creationary view of biology as I see it, there are positives and negatives. The positives are creationist attempts to reinterpret the facts from a creationary framework. The negatives are issues in which creationists point out scientific problems with some aspects of biological evolution. I will briefly mention three positives, four negatives, and one special issue that represents both a negative for evolution and a positive for creation. I am only providing a brief introduction to these ideas here. Of all creationist booksand articles related to the life sciences, most of them would fall into one of the following subject areas.

For the positives, where creationists are working to provide a better way of understanding the facts, the first would be intelligent design. 1) In the last few years there has arisen what is now called the IntelligentDesign Movement, which is influencing scientific circles more and more. This is the general idea that thereis a Creator-God who has created things for a purpose and that there is a complexity in how things aremade that demands that a Creator deliberately planned and arranged things to be as they are in nature. 2)Another major subject area of creationist research is in the subject of classification. How should weclassify living things? Creationists are trying to develop a new classification scheme known asBaraminology, which attempts to avoid following evolutionary concepts. 3) A third major area of creationist work is a Biblical and scientific issue, about how to understand life before Noah's Flood and at the time ofCreation. This is about the question of how is life different now than when it was originally created. This isa very important question; a number of other questions about understanding biology depend on how you answer this question. There is not currently a consensus among creationists on many questions in thisarea. 4) The last issue is called homology, which from the evolutionary view is about arguing for evolutionbased on the similarities between organisms. Creationists have shown this can be both a problem forevolution and a positive that supports the idea of intelligent design in living things.

Now for the negatives. These are areas where creationists attack evidences often presented for evolution. 1) One key area has been the matter of the problems with the mechanisms of evolution (especially mutations and natural selection). 2) Another major issue is the concept that the first living cells formed by natural processes from simple organic chemicals. This is basically the idea that your ancestor was anamino acid. The staggering complexity of living cells has pointed out devastating technical problems withthe evolution of life from chemicals. 3) The third main topic area in the negatives is cell biology andmolecular biology. This is a subject in which there has been incredible scientific advances in recent years. 4) A fourth area creationists have addressed for years is embryology. Though the basis of the idea hasbeen clearly disproven since the 1800's, evolutionists and often modern textbooks still use the argumentthat the developing embryo goes through stages like its evolution. All these issues are important toaddress in what follows.

Two terms should first be defined that are very important for understanding the issue of how much livingthings can change. Microevolution is a term for small changes in a type of living thing, changes that takeplace through the reproductive process. Macroevolution is a term for large scale changes in living things. Macroevolution is where the controversy lies. Macroevolution says that there is no limit to how much livingthings can change, given enough time and the right circumstances. Creationists say that there are limits tohow much change is possible. Creationists have acknowledged microevolution for years, so creationistsand evolutionists generally agree on small scale changes in living things. Living things are made so thatover generations the characteristics of their bodies are able to change in minor ways. This is very good because it makes living things able to adapt and survive as conditions change.

Here is a very important point not adequately explained in many biology courses and textbooks. Forthousands of years, man has been able to do selective breeding of livestock and plants to make somedesirable trait emphasized and more common. This is how we have cows that are specialized forproducing milk (dairy cows) and how we can cross various flowers or grain-bearing plants to get variouscolors or other characteristics. Also, in observing animals in the wild, we see how conditions like theclimate or food available can make one variety of bird more common that another, even though they areboth the same type of bird. Charles Darwin, in the 1800's, became well known for observations like this offinches on the Galapagos islands. He watched them and found that the size of their beaks seemed to berelated to what kind of food they ate and where they lived. All these kind of changes that we can really seeand study or produce in the real world are microevolution. The kind of changes required for macroevolution could not be seen in real living things even if macroevolution were true because they taketoo long. So, basically microevolution happens, and biology textbooks give a variety of examples of it thatwe can see in real life. But, macroevolution is never seen happening, nor could it ever be seen happening. Creationists acknowledge that living things can change, but they maintain the changes are limited. On the other hand, evolutionists believe that over long periods of time and many generations, larger changes cantake place by the same mechanisms that produce the small changes we can see. But, the mechanisms of microevolution cannot explain macroevolution.

[Soldier4Christ]

Part 2

In Part 1 of this series, the Biblical term "kind" was explained, as well as the terms microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution represents the large scale changes required for evolution, such as from fish to amphibian, for instance. Part 2 will address how living things change to adapt to their environment. Macroevolution requires large inputs of information into the genetic makeup of living things, to makeorganisms change from one form to another. In macroevolution, without a Creator's input, there is no explanation for where all this information can come from to make the complex changes required byevolution. In the creationist view, the Creator made living things able to change, but only within limits.

Mutations

DNA is the special complicated molecule that contains all the information that determines what the body ofa living thing is like. Every cell in our bodies contains this informational molecule. Chemical sequences inthe DNA are copied in reproduction, with half of the information coming from the father and half from themother. If something is not copied correctly in some way it is called a mutation. Mutations are a bad thingas a rule, though some mutations have little or no effect. There are mechanisms in cells that tend tocorrect mutations or prevent them from affecting us. Mutations cause many genetic diseases. But,evolutionary biologists argue that mutations would sometimes produce changes beneficial to a living thing, something that gives it an advantage of some kind and helps it survive.

There are several problems with mutations producing the changes required by macroevolution. First, mutations are almost all harmful and mutations are so rare that even if there are "beneficial" mutations, they could never become common in the population. They wouldn't last. I do not make this statement lightly, the problem of mutation rates is a major issue and an issue that requires some significant technical discussion to fully appreciate. The problem with mutations and how often they occur is a mathematical problem that many biologists do not appreciate adequately. Recent research implies that there are something from 1 to 3 mutations in humans per generation, on the average (harmful or not). This is enough to create problems for evolution theories. It creates a problem for macroevolution because if mutations were this frequent, the harmful ones would cause too many negative effects. On the other hand, if mutations occur less frequently, evolution still has a problem because then the beneficial mutations cannot become common in the population, so the beneficial changes in living things cannot get going.

I would like to make a distinction between what I would call soft beneficial mutations and hard beneficial mutations. (This is my terminology only, I am not aware of any other writer who makes this distinction.) Soft beneficial mutations only involve some modification of a trait the living thing already has (usually the loss of some function), they don't make anything really new. Put another way, soft beneficial mutations do not add significant amounts of new information to the genetic code. Soft beneficial mutations may still be harmful in most circumstances but in certain special situations it may provide an advantage.
Sickle cell anemia is an example. Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease that you would not wish on anyone. But, for people in certain tropical areas of the world where malaria is a problem, sickle cell anemia gives resistance to malaria. So, sickle cell anemia could be described as a beneficial mutation (in the "soft"sense). But, it could never be important for macroevolution because it is only an advantage in special circumstances. Malaria is not a problem everywhere in the world and so sickle cell anemia will never make the whole human race evolve resistance to malaria. "Soft" beneficial mutations are consistent with Biblical and scientific creationism in my opinion.

"Hard" beneficial mutations, on the other hand, are what macroevolution requires. Hard beneficial mutations have to produce a trait or organ system that is really new, not just a minor modification of what it already has. This requires addition of complex information in the DNA of an evolving animal or plant. And, it must be the type of change that would be an advantage to that living thing wherever it lives. It would have to be something that would benefit all of that living thing, so that the change can become common in the population. Soft beneficial mutations can happen, hard beneficial mutations cannot.

Modern molecular biology has shown us that there are great complexities in how information is encoded inthe DNA. There is much scientists do not yet know. Scientists may determine the genetic function of particular sequences of genes in humans. But the same sequence may have a different function in another living thing, or it may have multiple possible functions that depend on other genes in some way. A changein one particular gene can also affect more than one trait. So, the information encoded in the genes ofliving things is complex. But, mutations are totally random, one mutation has no affect on the next mutationand they have nothing to do with the needs of the organism. Macroevolution requires changes that often affect multiple organ systems at once, and if these changes do not work together properly the organism may not survive.

For instance, in the evolutionary change from reptiles to birds, changes in the skeleton would require changes in the muscles as well as in the respiratory system. Changes in the muscles requires changes inthe nerves, and so on. Living things are wonders of divine engineering. They are organized in complex ways. Yet, random mutations are said to provide the raw material that make the changes of macroevolution possible. I would say mutations are simply not the right kind of phenomena to generate thecomplex specified information that makes living things what they are. In fact, mutations are not necessary for living things to change to adapt to their environment. Many different animals have adapted white coats of fur so they can live effectively in arctic regions where there is lots of snow. These animals were not created so well adapted to arctic conditions at Creation. Rather, the Creator made them with enough information in their genes to allow for that possibility. Thus they became that way over a number of generations. This again is microevolution, not macroevolution. 

cont'd on page two