BACK TO
TOP

BACK TO
TOP

BACK TO
TOP

BACK TO
TOP

BACK TO
TOP

BACK TO
TOP

BACK TO
TOP

BACK TO
TOP

What do they claim to know?

Ask them to define what they mean by "evolution"

1. Distinguish between micro and macro evolution

FUNDAMENTAL TENETS OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:

1)ALL LIFE FORMS (ANIMALS, PLANTS, FISHES, HUMANS) HAVE DESCENDED FROM THE SAME ANCIENT ANCESTOR (THE FIRST ONE-CELLED CREATURE).

2)THIS DECENT OR EVOLUTION OCCURRED BY NATURAL PROCESSES WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION ("THE BLIND WATCHMAKER")

Darwin:  Natural Selection is Deity
"I speak of Natural Selection as an active power or deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets ... It is difficult to avoid personifying nature." Darwin, The Origin of Species, "Introduction," third edition.

Dawkins: Design is an illusion made so by a Blind Watchmaker
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose... Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection over whelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."

Micro vs. Macro
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR IT! EVOLUTIONISTS USE EVIDENCE FOR
MICRO EVOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE THEORY OF MACRO EVOLUTION;
MICRO (ADAPTATION WITHIN SPECIES) HAS BEEN OBSERVED; MACRO
HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.

Philip Johnson: Darwinists Use Micro to Prove Macro Which They Presuppose is True
"'Evolution' in Darwinist usage implies a completely naturalistic metaphysical system in which matter evolved to it present state of organized complexity without any participation by a Creator. But'evolution' also refers to much more modest concepts, such as microevolution and biological relationship. The tendency of dark moths to preponderate in a population when the background trees are dark therefore demonstrate evolution-- and also demonstrates, by semantic transformation, the naturalistic decent of human beings from bacteria."

Johnson:   "The creative power of the blind watchmaker is supported only by very slight evidence, such as the famous example of a moth population in which the percentage of dark moths increased during a period when the birds were better able to see light moths against the smoke-darkened background trees. This may be taken to show that natural selection can do something, but not that it can create anything that was not already in existence."

"Because 'evolution' means so many different things, almost any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest meaning of the term [e.g. micro evolution], and treat it as proof of the complete metaphysical system.... [Darwinists] find further instances of micro evolution.... What they never find is evidence that contradicts the ancestry thesis, because to Darwinists such evidence cannot exist. The "fact of evolution" is true by definition, and so negative information is uninteresting, and generally unpublishable."  Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 151-152.

Denton: "There is obviously an enormous difference between the evolution of a colour change in a moth's wing and the evolution of an organ like the human brain, and the differences among fruit flies of Hawaii, for example, are utterly trivial compared with the differences between a mouse and an elephant, or an octopus and a bee." Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 87.

Micro: More dark moths survive than light moths when leaves in their environment are covered with dark soot.

Macro: Moths can eventually become Birds?

Micro: According to Denton, the upper lid of the mongoloid eye may have evolved in response to the intense cold in central Asia in glacial times.

Extrapolate to Macro: Therefore, men in cold will eventually become polar bears?

The Boftom Line:
Micro-evolution - adaptation within species - yes!
Macro-evolution - transformation between species - NO!

Eleven ways to Refute Macro Evoiutlon -+PAGE 3
       How do they claim to know it?
       Ask them to define "Science"

2.Distinguish between Origin Science and Operation Science
 

Clearing up the Confusion over what is "Science"

Two Views of Origins

By Natural Law (no intelligent intervention) •Water Fall •Wind Erosion •Grand Canyon OPERATION/EMPIRICAL SCIENCE

By Supernatural Law (intelligent intervention) •Hydroelectric Plant •Wind Mill •Mt. Rushmore ORIGIN/FORENSIC SCIENCE

OPERATION (empirical) SCIENCE ORIGIN (forensic) SCIENCE Studies present Studies past Studies regularities Studies singularities Studies repeatable Studies unrepeatable Re-creation possible Re-creation impossible (e.g. a crime) How things work How things began Seeks secondary causes Seeks primary cause Conclusions faisifiable Conclusions not faisifiable

Show that both theories of origins (creation and evolution) require the use of origin science. As such, neither theory can be disproven in a laboratory, only judged more or less plausible in light of law of causality and the principle of uniformity (similar effects have similar causes).

Ex.  The O.J. Simpson trial relied on forensic science.

3.Expose their position as philosophical not scientific

     Ernst Haeckel: Deity is Annulled- The cell consists of matter called protoplasm, composed chiefly of carbon with an admixture of hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulphur. These component parts properly united produce the soul and body of the animated world, and suitably nursed became man. With this single argument the mystery of the universe is explained, the deity annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in. (Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe, 1899)

     Charles Hodge: Darwinism is Atheism --"What is Darwinism? It is Atheism.  This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; But it means that his theory is atheistic; that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to Atheism." Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism?, (1 878),177.

     Two huge presuppositions:

     a.The universe has always been governed by natural laws without interference
       from a creator.

How do they know this? This is a philosophical not scientific claim. As such, it is a claim that does not fit their own definition of science. In fact, it is a claim that is unfalsifiable.

         Johnson:    "As a general theory of biological creation Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is based on the a prior assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature."

         Behe :    A rule that materialism should be professed regardless of the evidence, is the equivalent of a rule that science may not contradict the teachings of a church.

     b.Natural selection is the blind watchmaker. It has the creative power to bring
complex things into existence that didn't exist before.

         As we'll see This is not supported by the empirical evidence. As such, it is not an empirically verifiable scientific claim. Neither can it be thought plausible through the principle of uniformity in forensic science. Therefore, it is a philosophical, not scientific claim.

Johnson :  Maybe Darwinism really is false-in principle, and not just in detail. Maybe mindless material processes can't create information-rich biological systems.  That is a real possibility, no matter how offensive it is to scientific naturalists.  How do Darwinists know that the blind watchmaker created the animal phyla, for example, since the process can't be demonstrated and all the historical evidence is missing?  Darwinists may have the cultural power to suppress questions like that for a time, but eventually they are going to have to come to grips with them.1

In other words, Darwin's theory did not take hold because of compelling evidence supporting the blind watchmaker, but because it provided an alternative to a Creator and Designer. It made scientists the authority figures in a new priest hood that liberated them from the church.

What about Evolution as a "fact?"

Johnson: "Common ancestry is a hypothesis, not a fact, no matter how strongly it appeals to a materialist's common sense. As a hypothesis it deserves our most respectful attention, which means... that we should test it rigorously." p. 153

After testing it, we see that evolution is true for micro but not for macro. For the Darwinists, it's more convenient to assert that evolution is a value-free "fact" than to admit their theory is predicated on value-laden philosophical presuppositions.

"Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem [of dissent] from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the lafter as mere belief or fantasy."


What about the "God of the Gaps?"

The fact that scientists don't like to say "we don't know" tells me nothing about what they really do know.  "To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself."

Johnson: "if design in biology is real, then the Designer also might be real, and scientific materialists contemplate this possibility (if at all) with outright panic. Science will come to a screeching halt, they insist, because everybody will stop doing experiments and just attribute all phenomena to the inscrutable will of God.

Nonsense. On the contrary, the concept that the universe is the product of a rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe (including our minds) is ultimately based in the mindless movements of mafter."

 What is the evidence for it?

Ask them what evidence they have.

4.Cite the Fossil Evidence

     a.THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE OPPOSES MACRO EVOLUTION (THERE ARE MISSING
LINKS EVERYWHERE) - if macro evolution were true,  we should find billions of intermediate life forms in the fossil record; no such transitions have been found; even evolutionists admit fossil record is characterized by stasis (species don't change) and sudden appearance and extinction.

     Darwin: Evidence for Evolution Lacking in Fossils
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Darwin, Origins, 1859)

     Stephen J. Gould, Harvard Evolutionist: Fossil Record Does Not Support Gradual Evolution
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:    

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed."' (Gould, Natural History, 1977, 13-14)

Eldredge: Biological Nonchange is an Obvious Fact
     "Expectation colored perception to such an extent that the most obvious single fact about biological evolution--nonchange--has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone's scientific notions of how life actually evolves. If ever there was a myth, it is that evolution is a process of constant change." (Niles Eldredge, Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, 8)

     Colin Patterson, Evolutionist: No evidence of transitionary forms
     "I fully agree with your comments an the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.  If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defense of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job."

b.SKELETAL REMAINS PROVIDE ONLY ABOUT 1 % OF WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT AN ORGANISM; THE OTHER 99% COMES FROM ITS BIOLOGICAL SOFT TISSUE - fossils don't give much information; e.g. certain dog and Wolf Skulls are almost identical but they are biologically very different; paleontologists can interpret a human-like skull to be most anything they want it to be - man or ape; much more than similarity of design is needed to prove common ancestry

     Michael Denton, Microbiologist: 99% of organism info from soft tissue
     To begin with, 99% of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil....information about the soft biology of a fossil form is difficult to obtain from its skeletal remains. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, 286)

     C.NO TYPE (FISH, AMPHIBIAN, REPTILE, BIRD, MAMMAL) IS BIOLOGICALLY ANCESTRAL TO ANY OTHER - every type is biologically distinct from every other type; no type is transitional, intermediate, primitive or ancestral to any other.

Michael Denton, Microbiologist: There are no transitionary forms "There is a total absence of partially inclusive or intermediate classes, and therefore none of the groups traditionally cited by evolutionary biologists as intermediate gives even the slightest hint of a supposedly transitional character. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, 286)


 Ask them to define "Natural Selection," and then ask them for the evidence that the "Blind Watchmaker" can create complex biological systems (specified complexity).

5.Point why their Natural/Artificial Selection analogy is invalid

     Artificial Selection Does Not Prove Macro Evolution
     The Evolutionary Thesis is this: If artificial selection can produce significant changes in a short time, then natural selection can make even greater changes over long periods of time. But this theory is nonsense as the following tabledemonstrates.

     EVEN INTELLIGENT HUMAN BREEDERS CANNOT CREATE ENTIRELY NEW TYPES - there is a genetic limit to change

     Philip Johnson: There's a Genetic Limit to Change
     "In other words, the reason that dogs don't become as big as elephants, much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven't been breeding them long enough. Dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change, and they stop getting bigger when the genetic limit is reached." Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 19.

Crucial Differences: Artificial Selection Natural Selection Goal Aim (end) in view No aim (end) in view Process Intelligently guided process Blind process Choices Intelligent choice of breeds No intelligent choice of breeds Protection Breeds guarded from Destructive processes Breeds not guarded from Destructive processes Freaks Preserves desired freaks Eliminates most freaks Interruptions Continued interruptions to reach desired goal No continued interruptions to reach any goal Survival Preferential survival Non-preferential survival

Conclusion:Rather than being similar, artificial selection and natural selection are in most crucial respects exactly opposite.Thus the analogy is invalid.


Ask them what they mean by "chance"

6.Don't allow them to use "Chance" as a Cause

     MACRO EVOLUTION PROVIDES NO EXPLANATION FOR FIRST LIFE OR HOW SUBSEQUENT SPECIES EVOLVED - Evolutionists assume life and evolution began by natural laws. But natural laws have never been observed to produce specified complexity (life) in nature or the laboratory (see "Implausibility of Spontaneous Generation")

     Thus, evolutionists often revert to "chance"; but "chance" has no power of its own, it's a word that describes mathematical possibilities; you can't turn ignorance into information, or give natural law the power to produce life, by citing chance", "random processes" or "natural selection!"

Saying that chance caused life is like saying the word "Chrysler" caused my minivan.

 Ask them how complex the first life was

7.Point out that the simplest life is incredibly complex THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SIMPLE" LIFE
(The information content Of DNA of a one-celled animal = 30 volumes of Encyclopedia Britannical)

     Darwinist Richard Dawkins
     Physics books may be complicated, but ... the objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author.  And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book....Each nucleus... contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, that all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of the body put together.

     Carl Sagan: The Information Content of the Human Brain = 20 Million Books "The information content of the human brain expressed is bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons--about a hundred trillion, 10 , bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world's largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space....The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy. The circuitry of a machine more wonderful that any devised by humans." (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 278)

     Sandage :    The World is Too Interconnected to be without an Architect The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know?  How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle - an architect for believers . . ." (Dr. Allan Sandage, "A Scientist Reflects on Religious Beliefs," Truth, vol. 1).

     Behe: Life has been designed!
     "Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity... The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs.(Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 193).

     "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell--to investigate life at the molecular level--is a loud, clear, piercing cry of 'design!' The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein" (ibid., 232-33)

8.Show that successive small changes required by Darwinism would make survival impossible

     INTERMEDIATE STATES WOULD BE NON-FUNCTIONAL - organs are highly interdependent as are their uses; e.g. intermediates between amphibians and birds could not survive while their scales were no longer scales but not quite feathers (having 5 % of an eye does NOT mean one has 5% vision). Besides, nature destroys freaks, it doesn't protect them.

1. Significant changes in complex systems must be simultaneous in order for the new system to function.
        1)Car--change in piston size involves change in other parts at the same time.
        2)Language--significant changes in even a paragraph necessitate total rewriting.
2. Significant changes in a complex system need intelligent forethought and intervention.
        1)From the Wright brothers to the 747
        2)From Cave drawings to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

Darwin: My Theory would absolutely break down if ...
     "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely breakdown" (Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed.NYU, 1988, 154)

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins agrees:
     "Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is a synonym for the total absence of [naturalistic] explanation" (Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 83).

Michael Behe: Darwinism can't explain irreducible complexity
     A system is irreducibly complex if it is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

     No component makes sense except as part of the system, and the system doesn't work unless everything is in place. That's irreducible complexity.

     "No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner--no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion. But we are here. All these things got here somehow; if not in a Darwinian fashion, then how?" (Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 187).

Behe adds that:. "Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of DNA reduplication, electron transport, telomere synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and more" (Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 160).

Behe reports that molecular biologists never publish detailed scenarios of how even a single complex molecular system could have evolved by a Darwinian process. There are no papers in scientific journals which set out detailed, testable scenarios of how these incredibly complex biochemical systems could be produced by Darwinian-style processes.


9.Point out that both sexes of each species would have to evolve simultaneously for macro evolution to be true

     There's no evidence that even a single creature could arise by helpful mutations much less two of the opposite sex along side one another!

     By now you should see that the Darwinian theory doesn't even make good fiction! It's nothing but
fanciful storytelling loaded with hollow scientific jargon intended to disguise what really is nothing more than a myth. That myth is the "creation story" of naturalistic scientists who want to rid the world, and their consciences, of the moral demands of the Creator.

How does it explain the origin of all things?

Ask them how the universe came to be (the origin of the universe)

10. Cite the evidence for the beginning of the universe
    
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING:

     1)THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Universe is not eternal: It is running down
"Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to heavier elements, it can never be restored to its original state. Minute by minute and year by year, as hydrogen is used up in stars, the supply of this element in the universe grows smaller." (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)

     2)THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING (if time were reversed, the universe would collapse back to nothing)

     Universe is not eternal: It is expanding
     The most complete study made thus far has been carried out on the 200-inch telescope by Allan Sandage. He compiled information on 42 galaxies, ranging out in space as far as six billion light years from us. His measurements indicate that the universe was expanding more rapidly in the past than it is today. This result lends further support to the belief that the universe exploded into being. (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 95).

     3)RADIATION ECHO OF THE INITIAL EXPLOSION (discovered in 1964)

     Universe is not Eternal: It exploded
     "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed." (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15)

     4)GREAT MASS OF MATTER FROM THE INITIAL EXPLOSION (discovered in 1992)

     "If you're religious, it's like looking at God." George Smoot, University of California Astrophysicist, Time Magazine, May 4, 1992, 62.

     PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT THAT TIME HAD A BEGINNING

a.If there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would have never gotten here.
b.But today is here.
c.Therefore, there weren't an infinite number of moments before today (the universe had a beginning).

MEMORY AID:
IN THE BEGINNING, GOD SPOKE AND THERE WAS A GREAT SURGE

SECOND LAW
   UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING
       RADIATION ECHO
           GREAT MASS OF MATTER
               END OF INFINITE TIME IMPOSSIBLE

If it had a beginning, then it must have had a Beginner. The evidence leaves us with the following two options.

                   Either

1) NO ONE CREATED SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING (ATHEISTIC VIEW)

                     or

2) SOMEONE CREATED SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING (THEISTIC VIEW)

       Which view is more reasonable?

         QUESTION TO ASK AN ATHEIST:

"If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all'?"

Atheistic Explanation of Origin of Universe: Nothing Caused the Universe
The two states of existence--nothing on one side, equivalent amounts of positive and negative energy on the other--might have equal probabilities of existence. For that reason, nothing could give rise to double-energy on a purely random basis. (Isaac Asimov, The Beginning and the End, 148)

According to the Big Bang Theory, the whole matter of the universe began to exist at a particular time in the remote past. A proponent of such a theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing. (Anthony Kenny, Five Ways, 66)

The bottom line from an agnostic astronomer: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance: He is about to conquer the highest peak: As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 116)

Ask them how the first life began (the origin of first life)

11.Show why spontaneous generation is implausible

IMPLAUSIBILITY OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION:

1.SPONTANEOUS GENERATION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED (Pasteur's beaker is still sterile; only intelligent causes have been observed to produce specified complexity)

2.NO PREBIOTIC SOUP
(not a trace found in the earth's oldest amber) "in fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth." (Brooks and Shaw, The Origin and Development of Living Systems, 1973)

         "A curious flaw of human nature is to permit the imagery of a catchy phrase to shape one's reasoning. Haldane's hot dilute soup became "primordial soup," a feature that has been popularized for nearly fifty years without geologic evidence that it ever existed." (Willia Day, Genesis on Planet Earth, 1979)


3.NO CONSTRUCTIVE MECHANISM
(before life there was no means to build life)


4.MANY DESTRUCTIVE FORCES
(2nd law: nature randomizes and tends to disorder)


5.ILLEGITIMATE INVESTIGATOR INTERFERENCE
(in experiment intelligent scientists created artificial environment yet still ended up with only biologically interesting chemicals - amino acids, not life)


6.NO LAB SIMULATION
(even with intelligence, scientists have not created life)


7.THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SIMPLE" LIFE
(The information content of DNA of a one-celled animal = 30 volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica!) against all of the empirical and forensic evidence, macro-evolutionists must believe:

THE BOTTOM LINE:

1. That no one created the universe out of nothing, and
2. That without intelligent intervention:
        a.Life Arose from Non-Life,
        b.The Personal Arose from the Non-Personal,
        c.The Intelligent Arose from the Non-intelligent,
        d.The Complex Arose from the Simple,
        e.Order Arose from Chaos!

So why don't more scientists believe in creation?
Because many simply don't want to believe in the only alternative ...

Nietzsche:     "if one were to prove this God of Christians to us, we should be even less able to believe in him." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, 627).

Huxley: "For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous (Julian Huxley, Religion without Revelation, 32)

Jastrow: "There is a kind of religion in science-. It is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event-. Every effect must have its cause: there is no first cause.... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world has a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid. And as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control." (Jastrow, 1 1 3-114)

Sullivan:     It became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult to accept." (J. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science, 94)

Nature Magazine: "The theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."  (Nature Magazine, February 10, 1929)

It's a matter of the will, not the mind:
Romans 1:18-20 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

©1997 Frank Turek • IMPACT • P.O. Box 471974 • Charlotte, NC • (704) 846-1226