Inspirational Readings for Your Daily Walk with God:

Christian Mediation

 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

Inspirational Readings for Your Daily Walk with God:

Christian Mediation

 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

The Evolution of a Creationist



One day my two creationist dental students asked me to give them a scientific explanation for how evolution occurs. In other words, they wanted me to defend my evolutionary beliefs by telling them the scientific evidence I could present as proof of how one creature evolves into another and whether that evidence conflicts with the Bible. Darwin seemed like the logical place to start searching for my answer. I believed the evidence was there somewhere, but I'd never been asked to prove it before. Did I ever get a shock! Darwin had no idea how one species of animal could evolve into another. He wrote to a friend in 1863;:

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change." [1]


Obviously, in 1863, four years after publishing Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin had no idea how one species might change into another. The only thing he thought he could prove was that " one species has changed." He could not even imagine what a "beneficial" change might look like. Scientists today remain as baffled as Darwin.

The world's leading evolutionary thinkers had a convention in Rome in 1981. They wanted to decide what makes one species evolve into another species, and how that change, from one animal or plant into another, might occur. Dr. Ernst Mayr, professor emeritus of Harvard, writes:

"We had an international conference in Rome in 1981 on the mechanisms of speciation. It was attended by many of the leading botanists, zoologists, paleontologists, geneticists, cytologists and biologists. The one thing on which they all agreed was that we still have absolutely no idea what happens genetically during speciation. That's a damning statement, but it's the truth." [2]

These scientists in Rome in 1981 arrived at their conclusion, "We have no idea how evolution occurs"! Neither did Darwin in 1863! This, then, is the really big question of evolution: How does it happen? God says He created each thing "after its kind" (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Evolutionists say they do not know how "kinds" come into being. Which account do you believe? God's or the evolutionist's? My position is that God alone is worthy to be praised!

Scientists do not know how one species might change into another. They do not even know how a simple chemical compound might come about. Author and friend of evolution, Jeff Goldberg, records for us the thoughts of Hans Kosterlitz, one of the discoverers of the human body's natural pain killers, the enkephalins:

"It is a question almost of God. Working on the enkephalins you get -- without being religious -- a commitment. You start to admire and wonder, how could that come about -- that plants and animals share such structurally similar chemicals? How, even after a million years of evolution, could the earth, with all its plants and creatures, be so very simple and unified?" [3]

Kosterlitz looked at the enkephalins, and his study of the micro-universe made him think about God. But he quickly adds the disclaimer "without being religious," as if thinking about God is not religious when studying only a small part of His creation. Apparently Kosterlitz believes God has nothing to do with science. Yet, when scientists look at the creation, God has intended for it to make them realize that there must be a Designer-God behind it all. However, most add their disclaimers and refuse to honor Him as God. God's Word (i.e. Romans 1:18-22) declares that their thinking is thereby reduced to foolish speculations (evolution over millions of years, etc.).

Kosterlitz questioned how plants and animals could "...share such structurally similar chemicals". If we examine this sharing of chemicals from a creationist perspective, then God created life to fit in the common atmosphere of earth with a common food chain composed of certain basic chemicals. Similarities in creatures do not prove evolution, but more logically display the wisdom of God in creating plants and animals which, in all their diversity, can exist in a common environment. God designed all life to exist while using a few common basic chemicals in an atmosphere made mostly of oxygen and nitrogen. What genius the God of the Bible displays!


Jerry Adler, a science writer, reviews world class evolutionary thinker Stephen Jay Gould's book, Wonderful Life, with these words:

"Science, having toppled God the Creator and exalted Man, now wants to raise E. coli and the rest of the seething mass of terrestrial life up there alongside him. This view does not deny the uniqueness of Homo sapiens and its distinctive contribution to life, human consciousness. It asserts, however, that there is nothing inherent in the laws of nature that directed evolution toward the production of human beings. There is nothing predestined about our current pre-eminence among large terrestrial fauna; we are the product of a whole series of contingent events in the history of our planet, any one of which could have been reversed to give rise to a different outcome.

We are, in short, like every other creature that ever walked or slithered across the earth, an accident....

The survivors...were lucky.

The story of life is one of periodic mass extinctions, which wiped out the majority of species on earth." [4]

Gould and Adler evidently believe that God has been "toppled", that science and man are exalted, and all of this is based on the "lucky survivors" of mass extinctions. So, evolution appears to be based upon death. Because of the death of the "unfit", the "fittest" survive. How might a scientist describe "unfit" life? Do evolutionists believe there is "unfit" life among us today? Did Hitler believe that? Hitler was an evolutionist and apparently thought he was speeding up the process of survival of the fittest. Evolution is not amoral. It is not neutral thinking. It promotes a value system that permits each individual to do what is right in his own eyes. Evolutionary thought encourages school curricular materials that force young minds to choose who is fit to survive, and who is unfit; who will be rescued in the lifeboat, and who will be left to die of exposure or drowning. No one but God is qualified to describe a certain life as fit or "unfit". Evolutionary thinking wrongly promotes man to the status of God. It forces people to make decisions (for instance about life and death, abortion, euthanasia, infanticide) that should remain with God alone.


Scientists are correct when they observe and publish the fact that mass extinctions have occurred in the past. In the present, extinctions are occurring on a daily basis. What science can prove with facts is that life is disappearing. Life of a wide variety of kinds of plants and animals is becoming extinct. Does this prove that new life forms are now evolving or ever did evolve? Science has conclusively proven that life is dying and the universe is running down. The fossils are a record of death and extinction. The "Cambrian Explosion" [5] is not an explosion of early life. It is a fossil record of the death of millions of complex organisms that, for the most part, no longer exist. So, therefore, when we look at nature, we do not see emerging new life forms but rather death and extinction ... entropy in action.

The Creator-God of the Bible is the source of life (John 5:26ff). Jesus said,

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:  and they that hear shall live.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."  (John 5:24-29)

God created life. Death came when the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve, rebelled against their Creator and sinned. Romans 5:12 states:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

I Corinthians 15:21 continues this teaching:

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

If death came as a result of the sin of Adam, then sin, decay and death were non-existent until the Fall. What is the fossil record? It is a testimony of death. Could we have millions of years of death and fossil "man" leading up to Adam when the Scriptures plainly teach "for by man (referring to Adam) came death?" Fossils are a record of death. Without death, there can be no fossils. Do we believe the Bible or do we believe the speculations of scientists? Scientists believe death began millions of years before man evolved onto the scene. The Bible records that death began with Adam.


As God's creatures, we do not subject the Bible to science, we subject science to the Bible. The challenge whether to believe God and His Word or to believe science is presented by Scott Huse, a brilliant Christian thinker, in his excellent book, The Collapse of Evolution. The conflict of evolutionary theory against the Holy Scripture is impossible to reconcile. Huse lists 24 contrasts between the Bible and evolutionary thinking:

Bible Evolution
God is the creator of all things. Natural chance processes can account for the existence of all things.
World created in six literal days (Genesis 1). World evolved over eons.  
Creation is completed (Genesis 2:3).   Creative processes continuing.  
Ocean before land (Genesis 1:2).   Land before oceans.  
Atmosphere between two hydrospheres (Genesis 1:7).   Contiguous atmosphere and hydrosphere.  
First life on land (Genesis 1:11).   Life began in the oceans.  
First life was land plants (Genesis 1:11).   Marine organisms evolved first.  
Earth before sun and stars (Genesis 1:14-19).   Sun and stars before earth.  
Fruit trees before fishes (Genesis 1:11). Fishes before fruit trees
All stars made on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16) Stars evolved at various times.  
Birds and fishes created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20, 21).   Fishes evolved hundreds of millions of years before birds appeared.
Birds before insects (Genesis 1:20, 21). Insects before birds.  
Whales before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31).   Reptiles before whales.  
Birds before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31).   Reptiles before birds.
Man before rain (Genesis 2:5).   Rain before man.  
Man before woman (Genesis 2:21-22).   Woman before man (by genetics).  
Light before the sun (Genesis 1:3-19).   Sun before any light.
Plants before the sun (Genesis 1:11-19). Sun before any plants.  
Abundance and variety of marine life all at once (Genesis 1:20, 21).   Marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic blob.  
Man's body from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7)   Man evolved from monkeys.  
Man exercised dominion over all organisms (Genesis 1:28).   Most organisms extinct before man existed.  
Man originally a vegetarian (Genesis 1:29).   Man originally a meat eater.  
Fixed and distinct kinds (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; I Corinthians 15:38-39).   Life forms in a continual state of flux.  
Man's sin the cause of death (Romans 5:12). Struggle and death existent long before the evolution of man.
Bible Evolution


In addition to these specific direct contradictions, there are stark differences of general principle between atheistic evolution and Biblical Christianity. Jesus said:


"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:18 KJV)


"The fruit of evolution has been all sorts of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice. It has served as an intellectual basis for Hitler's nazism and Marx's communism. It has prompted apostasy, atheism, secular humanism and libertinism, as well as establishing a basis for ethical relativism, which has spread through our society like a cancer. The mind and general welfare of mankind has suffered greatly as a result of this naturalistic philosophy.

   According to the Bible, man is a responsible creature. One day he will give an account for his life's actions and motives. But when man is viewed as the product of some vague purposeless evolutionary process, he is conveniently freed from all moral obligations and responsibility. After all, he is merely an accident of nature, an intelligent animal at best." [6]

Evolution or creation: you cannot have both! Scott Huse's list is brutally clear. Look again at #14, for example. The Bible says in Genesis 1:20-31 that birds came on the fifth day and reptiles on the sixth day. That means birds came before reptiles. Yet evolution teaches as fact that reptiles came before birds. The two views are mutually exclusive.  You either believe the Bible or you believe the speculations of men. Will you bow to science, or will you bow to your Creator? There are certain things in life that are black and white. We should have the integrity, especially as professing Christians, to choose God's Word and not the speculations of men.

You cannot be an evolutionist and believe the Bible as it is written. The plain word of Scripture is "God created". Therefore, evolution of molecules-to-man is a false speculation of man. Walter Brown reveals 57 irreconcilable differences between the Bible and "theistic" evolution in his book, In the Beginning, The Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 N. 20th Place, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, 1989, pp. 110-115.


When speaking of evolution as a false speculation, we mean macroevolution -- one cell to man. What scientists call microevolution, obviously occurs. Microevolution is basically genetic variety within a certain kind of organism. For example, people are all different even though we come from one set of parents. How can five billion plus people vary so widely in appearance and abilities if we all come from the same set of parents? This is microevolution or adaptation or, preferably, genetic variation, or perhaps, genetic drift. Even microevolution is not true evolution (something becoming something else due to changes in the genes).  Different kinds of corn, dogs and mustard are still identified as corn, dogs and mustard. There is popcorn, sweet corn, and field corn; hounds, poodles and collies; many varieties of mustard. This does not prove evolution to be true. It only displays genetic differences within the families of corn, dogs, and mustard.


How might a creationist explain all the different races of people? God's record of the Tower of Babel incident in Genesis 11 provides the answer:

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

And they said one to another, "Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.

And they said, "Come, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." (Genesis 11:1-9)

      In the beginning, everyone spoke the same language. Therefore, they were able to pool their intellectual resources, since everyone could talk to everyone else. As a result, nothing was "impossible for them" or "restrained from them" (Genesis 11:6). They chose to violate God's command to scatter across the earth (Genesis 9:1), a violation which resulted in God creating the different basic languages. Only small populations of people isolated from other people groups could communicate with each other, and this would explain the "Cave Man" period as language restrictions and the chaos of the "scattering period" could certainly create some extremely isolated and primitive pockets of people. The language restrictions forced them to disperse across the earth and "in-breed" with relatives. Certain races of people emerged after several generations of this inbreeding. [(God eventually proclaimed inbreeding to be sin in the law of Moses. Cain and Seth took wives from among their sisters but this was not sin until the Law came. See Leviticus 18 below.)

"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.     

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover..." (Leviticus 18:5ff).]

Scientists tell us that all the races of mankind came from a single, female parent. On this point, Scripture does not negate "science". The races (variations within the human "kind") are most probably a result of the scattering of people around the globe by God after the Tower of Babel.


   The study of language has developed into a complex field of scholarship. Linguists tell us that languages get more and more complex the farther back they trace them. The older ("more primitive") a language is, the more complex it appears to be. This is powerful evidence against evolution.

If evolution is true and man gradually evolved from more primitive creatures, language should get more and more simple the older it is said to be. Prehistoric man should have communicated first with grunts; then with single syllables; then with multi-syllabic words (ba-na-na); then, with sentence fragments, developing into sentences ("I want banana"), etc. What is found is just the opposite. Early languages such as Sumerian are so complex that only a handful of the most brilliant scholars can decipher them. The Tower of Babel incident explains the races and the problem of complex "primitive" languages. God created the languages instantly and fully mature. Evolution offers no good explanation for the complexity of the earliest known languages!

Linguistic researchers from around the world have published their ideas concerning the geographic location of our "primitive" mother tongue. Linguists call this language Proto-Indo-European. Two Russian experts, Thomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov, have offered evidence "...that Indo-European originated in an area known as Anatolia, which is now part of Turkey, and from there spread throughout Europe and the sub-continent." (see U.S. News and World Report, Nov. 5, 1990, page 62).

U.S. News and World Report was not the first publication to report that language can be traced back to Turkey. The Bible records for us that Noah and his family had their post-flood beginnings in Turkey:

"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." (Genesis 8:4)

Scientists trace language back to a particular place on earth, the Bible would describe that place to be the mountains of Ararat in Turkey. The linguists agree!


Since the creation of languages at the Tower of Babel, the endeavors of generations of mankind have been limited (not able to do the impossible) by the language barrier. But now, for the first time since the Tower of Babel, our generation has a common international language -- the language of hi-tech computers. With computers, we can again pool our international research and knowledge and do the impossible (man on the moon, heart transplants, Concorde jet travel, etc.). God stepped into time to stop this situation in Genesis 11. What might He do in our generation as the teachings of evolution convince more and more people that God is not necessary for any part of our existence? We are rapidly becoming a people who believe the bottom line of William Henley's Invictus: "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." This was the attitude of Babylon, and the Creator was not pleased.

One other thought to consider in Genesis 11 -- could the people of Babel have been building a water-proof tower? The biblical text states the use of specially fired bricks (hardened) and the use of water-proof tar (KJV "slime") for mortar. The flood judgment of Noah's day would have been fresh on the minds of these people. Could they have been shaking their fists at God (rebelling) with their pooled intellectual resources as they built a water-proof tower, thus making a statement? "God, you can't get us again with a flood! We will all come together in our water-proof tower that reaches into the sky. We will save our own lives in spite of You. We will control our destiny. We will take charge of our lives." How much of this attitude is like Lucifer -- "I will be like the Most High"? (Isaiah 14:13,14) The science of that day may have convinced the people that they could quite satisfactorily live apart from their Creator. Scientists today climb into their ivory towers and say in their hearts and in their papers: "There is no God. We can do quite well without Him. We are all gods and control our own destiny."


Scientists often make proclamations and publish papers that elevate them to god-like status. Are we forced to believe that science and the scientific method have "toppled" God? From our earliest school days, we are taught that science is based on careful experimentation and disciplined thought. Science gives us facts. We can trust it. We are further educated by television programs and interviews with Ph.D.'s like Carl Sagan stating that "evolution is no longer a theory, but a proven fact". This is not the scientific method! Evolutionist, Hy Ruchlis, defines the scientific method:

"The Scientific Method is the basic set of procedures that scientists use for obtaining new knowledge about the universe in which we live." [7]

Making a proclamation that evolution is no longer a theory, but a proven fact is just that -- a proclamation. It is not testable science. It does not fit within the definition of the Scientific Method. Ruchlis continues:

"Unless the teachings of the authorities on a subject are based upon scientific method, error can be just as easily transmitted as fact...

The most important point to remember about the method of science is that it rests upon the attitude of open mind. In accordance with this attitude, one has the right to question any accepted fact. One who searches for truth has to learn to question deeply the things that are generally accepted as being "obviously true." [8]

How does evolution as a "scientific" explanation for origins measure up under Ruchlis' explanation of scientific method? It receives a failing grade. Could evolution be "error... transmitted as fact"? It certainly could. Do evolutionists present an "open mind"? Do they permit their classroom students to question evolution as perhaps not being "...obviously true"? On the contrary, evolutionists have amply demonstrated they want only one view taught in the classrooms of the world.

When a credentialed scientist who is a creationist presents hard evidence to support the Creator and His creation, he or she is accused of teaching religion.

But evolution from one cell to man is not based on the scientific method[9] and is therefore a faith system. That means it is just as "religious" as belief in special creation. The question is not, "is evolution, science and creation a religion?" but "which system of belief -- creation or evolution -- has the most factual science to back it up?"

David E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland) have studied the scientific method and its relationship to the processes of evolution. Their studied opinion is that macroevolution is beyond the range of "testable hypothesis". In other words, it is not able to be proven factually true with the scientific method. The origin of the first living cell is scientifically "unknowable". In spite of this, evolutionists Green and Goldberger deny the existence of anything supernatural ("paraphysical").[10] Contrary to the thinking of these two scientists, evolution is not science: it is religion. Yet religious evolutionists are not willing to let religious creationists present their views in the public school system. In fact, as we all know, our courts here in America ("The land of the free and the home of the brave") will not allow an alternative view for the origin of man to be presented in our classrooms without some sort of objection. If creation is so obviously an absurd option for belief, one would certainly have to question why it is such a threatening concept to consider in the classrooms of our children. Surely, if evolution is true and as easily validated as scientists contend, there should be no threat at all in allowing it to be challenged by the option of creation.

It is interesting to note that a growing number of evolutionary scientists are realizing that there is a gross lack of scientific evidence to support the molecules-to-man evolution model. The gnawing reality is that, as one evolutionist has stated: "The creationists seem to have the better argument."


When one religion is in competition with another religion, the true religion will ultimately prevail. The God of creation is already the victor. An anonymous writer, M.B., who works for the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) expressed it this way:

"God created the Heaven and the Earth. Quickly He was faced with a class action suit for failure to file an environmental impact statement. He was granted a temporary permit for the heavenly part of the project, but was stymied with a cease and desist order for the earthly part.

Appearing at the hearing, God was asked why He began His earthly project in the first place. He replied that He just liked to be creative!

Then God said, "Let there be light" and immediately the officials demanded to know how the light would be made. Would there be strip mining? What about thermal pollution? God explained that the light would come from a huge ball of fire. God was granted permission to make light, assuming that no smoke would result from the ball of fire, and to conserve energy, the light would have to be out half of the time. God agreed and said He would call the light "Day" and the darkness, "Night". The officials replied that they were not interested in semantics.

God said, "Let the Earth bring forth green herb and such as may seed." The Environmental Protection Agency agreed so long as native seed was used. Then God said, "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creatures having life; and the fowl that may fly over the Earth." Officials pointed out that this would require the approval of the Game and Fish Commission coordinated with the Heavenly Wildlife Federation and the Audubongelic Society.

Everything was okay until God said He wanted to complete the project in six days. Officials said that it would take at least 100 days to review the application and impact statement. After that there would be a public hearing. Then there would be 10 to 12 months before...

At this point, God created hell!"

Evolution may be winning some tactical skirmishes in teamwork with the world system, but let us never forget that our Lord will have the last word. The Creator tells us how everything will conclude in Philippians 2:10,11:

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (emphasis added)

Our Lord, our Creator is the Victor! Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Ernst Mayr, and Stephen Jay Gould, as well as that evolutionist college professor or school teacher, will all bow down before their Savior and Creator, Jesus Christ the Lord. They will confess out loud with their own tongue, "Jesus Christ is Lord", to the glory of God the Father. They have examined the creation and have willfully chosen to believe a lie. Unless they come to the Lord Jesus in simple faith and confess their sinful rebellion against Him, they will "bow" and "confess" at the judgment to no avail. They will stand before God their Creator without excuse. Romans l:19-23 says:

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things." (Romans 1:19-23)

The great evolutionary minds of the day have a tendency to elevate man and creature to the status of God. From chemicals to man, all is essentially equal. All is "One"! But is this wisdom or is it foolishness? God says:

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Proverbs 9:10)

True wisdom is belief in God the Creator. There is unity and there is diversity in His creation. Man might look like a monkey and even act like a monkey, but he cannot take a blood transfusion from a monkey. As professing Christians, when we fail to bow before God in recognition of His sovereignty and omnipotence, we open ourselves to being tainted with vain philosophies and the foolish speculations of this world system.  Have we so devoted ourselves to learning the ways of the world that we have neglected the ways of the Word? Do we stand condemned before our Creator because our true commitment lies with the imaginations and speculations of men rather than with the eternal truths of the Bible? Are we lacking faith because we have drifted into subjecting the Bible to science instead of subjecting science to the Bible? Truly "there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death". (Proverbs 14:12) "O God, help us with our unbelief!


[1] The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Frances Darwin, Ed., N.Y.: Appleton & Co., 1898, Vol. 11, p. 210. (Darwin's letter to G. Benham, May 22, 1863). 

[2] Dr. Ernst Mayr, Omni Magazine, February, 1983, p. 78.  

[3] Jeff Goldberg, Anatomy of a Scientific Discovery (N.Y.: Bantam Books, 1988), p. 211.  

[4] Jerry Adler, Newsweek, November 20, 1989, p. 68. 

[5]Geologists tell us that Cambrian rocks are the oldest rocks that contain numerous life-forms as fossils. Many of these rocks display extremely complex creatures that supposedly existed 600,000,000 years ago. Because there are so many types and numbers of fossil creatures they are referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion of Life". The Genesis flood is a scientifically feasible explanation for this massive and rapid destruction of living creatures. This universal flood occurred about 5,000 years ago, not 600,000,000!  

[6] Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), p. 122-124.  

[7] Hy Ruchlis, Discovering Scientific Method (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 7.  

[8] ibid: Ruchlis, pp. 7,8.  

[9] "The open mind is one important aspect of the scientific attitude which lies at the base of scientific method. A person who approaches a problem with a closed mind, unwilling to examine new facts, without any desire to make careful observations, and subject to the tyranny of certainty, has little or no chance of solving that problem properly. But a person with scientific attitudes, who knows now easy it is to be wrong, who examines new facts even if they seem to contradict his pet beliefs, who actually goes out hunting for such facts -- such a person has a head start along the road to the solution of any problem he faces." ibid: Ruchlis, p. 11.  

[10] "...the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were at work. We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework for frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables." David E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison, U.S.A.) and Robert F. Goldberger (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.), Molecular Insights into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406-407, quoted from The Quote Book, p. 20.