Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Creationism - National Center for Science Education Creationism - National Center for Science Education
No, we must have a supernatural God. We must have a Bible divinely inspired. We must have this earth coming into being at the hands of God. We must have a man made in the image of God, then fallen, then needing to come for mercy and forgiveness, and to be born again. [1963:10-11] In Man—Ape or Image (1984), John Rendle-Short concurs that the Bible “flatly contradicts” the theory of evolution. “Therefore, if evolution is true, the Genesis narrative must be largely myth or poetry, with a spiritual, non-historic basis”—a conclusion he flatly rejects. “If evolution is true, there was no historical Fall. If man did not Fall, there is no need for a Saviour.” In Evolution: When Fact Becomes Fiction (1986:173), a book endorsed and distributed by the Creation-Science Legal Defense Fund, Ricki Pavlu says: If a person rejects the Old Testament account of creation and classifies Genesis 1 and 2 as mere fables, then he must also reject the New Testament, for the New Testament accepts as valid the creation, Adam and Eve, and the curse. If any portion of God’s Word is in error, then we must reject the whole, including the message of salvation. Robert Whitelaw, the Virginia Tech engineering professor, says that the acceptance of evolution results in the relegation of the biblical record “to the dust-bin of folk lore.” For instance, if [evolution] is true, then there is no origin, no purpose, no destiny. There is no truth or error. There is no right or wrong. There is no way to tell the real from the imaginary. There is no good, no evil, no hope. The end now justifies the means. Might becomes right and tyranny, brutality, greed, all become acceptable, IF total evolution is the answer... [1981:1] In Genesis Versus Evolution (1961:58-9), Dudley Whitney argues that if natural law cannot explain earth history (and it cannot), then special creation must be true; if the Flood really occurred (and science shows that it did), then special creation must be true; if the geological ages are illusory (and they are), then special creation must be true; if human history started recently (and evidence shows that it did), then special creation must be true. David C.C. Watson says that the “monstrous error” of evolution is the biggest delusion, the “greatest brain robbery,” ever perpetrated (The Great Brain Robbery 1976). There is no possible harmonization between evolution and Genesis; they flatly contradict each other. Darwinism contradicts nearly everything in the creation account of Genesis: instant creation, the fixity of species, the special creation of man and woman, the Fall, the curse, the universal Flood, the miraculous confusion of tongues, and the young age of the earth. In Evolution Vs Science and the Bible (1974), a series of pamphlets designed as a study course for church schools (but also deliberately designed to double as tracts for wide distribution), Bob West denounces evolution because it contradicts the Bible. “The Bible record is the only record that harmonizes with scientific fact,” proclaims West, a Gap Theorist. If evolution is true, it is necessary for the following to also be true. (1) There is no God. (2) The Bible account of creation is a myth or fantasy. (3) The scriptures are not from God. (4) Jesus is not our saviour. (5) Man is only an animal. (6) There is no such thing as sin, or morality. [tract #1]
EVOLUTION AS MAN’S ESCAPE FROM GOD “From first to last,” said Adam Sedgwick of Darwin’s Origin, “it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up... And why was this done? For no other solid reason, I am sure except to make us independent of a Creator” (quoted in Gillespie 979:140). As Gillespie notes, this may be partially true: Darwin may have been motivated in part by a desire to propose a purely positivist science—a science which did not allow of supernatural causation and explanation. But ever since, fundamentalists have extrapolated from this the allegation that people believe in evolution not because of scientific evidence, but primarily in order to escape from acknowledgment of God. Philip Mauro, in Evolution at the Bar (1922:60), says: “It requires no great penetration to see that the real object of attack by supporters of Evolution is the Bible, with its revelation of Christ as the Redeemer and Saviour of men.” If evolution is contradicted by the findings of science, asks Theodore Graebner, why do scientists believe in it? He continues: In answering this question let us first observe that scientists do not stand opposed to Christian belief as representatives of science. It is not science, but the scientists, not geology, but the geologists, not physics, but the physicists that oppose Christian theology. [1921:141] The warfare of philosophy against Christian faith is readily explained. Man is corrupt. He loves sin. He is conscious of his guilt and fears the penalty. Hence every avenue of escape is welcome, if only he can persuade himself that there is no God, that there is no judgment. [1921:145] In Why Scientists Accept Evolution, R.T. Clark and J. Bales argue that nineteenth century scientists “accepted evolution because of their anti-supernatural bias, and not because of the weight of scientific evidence” (1966:108). (They claim that twentieth century scientists accept it, uncritically, simply because their teachers and predecessors did.) People are so opposed to God, says Carl Theodore Schwarze in The Harmony of Science and the Bible (1942), that they accept any silly theory, such as evolution, that “gives the lie to Scripture.” “The reason people believe in evolution,” says evangelist John R. Rice, founder and editor of Sword of the Lord, “is not that it is reasonable but that it is an excuse for not believing in God and direct creation” (In the Beginning..., 1975:43). In Evolution: The Incredible Hoax, Homer Duncan, director of Missionary Crusader in Lubbock, Texas, gives as one of the primary reasons people believe in evolution that “man wishes to escape the authority of God and the authority of His Word”: Human nature does not like the restraints that are put on us by believing in God. We want to be free. We want to do what we want to do. We do not want to be under the authority of God, or under the authority of the Bible. Men refuse to recognize the awful reality of sin. They do not wish to believe that they will be held accountable for their sins. [1978:52] Satan uses the theory of evolution to exploit this desire to escape God: “The theory of evolution is one of Satan’s master strokes.” The conflict between creation and evolution is a major part of the gigantic battle between God and Satan. It is a battle for the minds and souls of men. The Biblical account of creation and atheistic evolution are diametrically opposed to each other. Both positions cannot be true. Common sense compels me to believe
- Page 75 and 76: egan in 1965. Biology: A Search for
- Page 77 and 78: THE BIBLE-SCIENCE ASSOCIATION The B
- Page 79 and 80: space technology, and a member of t
- Page 81 and 82: California Public Schools (Segraves
- Page 83 and 84: Henry Morris had a successful caree
- Page 85 and 86: the protestors objected to, but the
- Page 87 and 88: and creationist thought. Interestin
- Page 89 and 90: Lubenow and said, “You’re a Chr
- Page 91 and 92: Among the attendees at the Summer I
- Page 93 and 94: educes his bigoted evolutionist pro
- Page 95 and 96: CHAPTER 4 THEORETICAL ISSUES: SCIEN
- Page 97 and 98: eality, nor is it intended to be. (
- Page 99 and 100: Assuming that present-day scientifi
- Page 101 and 102: devotes much of his book to the mor
- Page 103 and 104: Hitchcock. Their completely unfound
- Page 105 and 106: in the series did. Rev. Henry Beach
- Page 107 and 108: Materialism and Evolution (1932) is
- Page 109 and 110: (1984), he says: “The Bible is in
- Page 111 and 112: Faith, he says, is not dependent on
- Page 113 and 114: “Each creation command in Genesis
- Page 115 and 116: lawful process. This “lawful” o
- Page 117 and 118: used Gillespie’s argument to argu
- Page 119 and 120: The Bible, says Van Til, as God’s
- Page 121 and 122: make it conform to this straightfor
- Page 123 and 124: If the Bible and Christ and Christi
- Page 125: Jesus was either a “lunatic or th
- Page 129 and 130: Design, according to fundamentalist
- Page 131 and 132: disease, death, and decay all origi
- Page 133 and 134: “If God had not given each specie
- Page 135 and 136: In a book on astronomy, John Whitco
- Page 137 and 138: Pentecostalists typically affirm be
- Page 139 and 140: member. In the 1920s, Aimee Semple
- Page 141 and 142: James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridg
- Page 143 and 144: ook, calling it ‘a fairy tale,’
- Page 145 and 146: In the second half of his book O’
- Page 147 and 148: any species from another species. I
- Page 149 and 150: never heard of Marra before, but I
- Page 151 and 152: accuse him, as already noted, of fo
- Page 153 and 154: Jay Sekulow is a lawyer who represe
- Page 155 and 156: to “internal” evidence, Islamic
- Page 157 and 158: What initially strikes the reader c
- Page 159 and 160: Journal of the Victoria Institute,
- Page 161 and 162: (all of ICR and/or CRS), and Malcol
- Page 163 and 164: Creationism in South Africa is infl
- Page 165 and 166: also includes other Bible-science i
- Page 167 and 168: oard of advisors includes Gunther S
- Page 169 and 170: Evolution on Trial (1985), one of s
- Page 171 and 172: sponsored by UCLA, and partly funde
- Page 173 and 174: Christianity, then emigrated to Can
- Page 175 and 176: R.G. Elmendorf, the whimsical Catho
EVOLUTION AS MAN’S ESCAPE FROM GOD<br />
“From first to last,” said Adam Sedgwick of Darwin’s Origin, “it is a dish of rank<br />
materialism cleverly cooked and served up... And why was this done? For no other solid<br />
reason, I am sure except to make us independent of a Creator” (quoted in Gillespie<br />
979:140). As Gillespie notes, this may be partially true: Darwin may have been<br />
motivated in part by a desire to propose a purely positivist science—a science which did<br />
not allow of supernatural causation and explanation. But ever since, fundamentalists<br />
have extrapolated from this the allegation that people believe in evolution not because of<br />
scientific evidence, but primarily in order to escape from acknowledgment of God.<br />
Philip Mauro, in Evolution at the Bar (1922:60), says: “It requires no great<br />
penetration to see that the real object of attack by supporters of Evolution is the Bible,<br />
with its revelation of Christ as the Redeemer and Saviour of men.” If evolution is<br />
contradicted by the findings of science, asks Theodore Graebner, why do scientists<br />
believe in it? He continues:<br />
In answering this question let us first observe that scientists do not stand opposed to Christian belief as<br />
representatives of science. It is not science, but the scientists, not geology, but the geologists, not physics,<br />
but the physicists that oppose Christian theology. [1921:141]<br />
The warfare of philosophy against Christian faith is readily explained. Man is corrupt. He loves sin. He is<br />
conscious of his guilt and fears the penalty. Hence every avenue of escape is welcome, if only he can<br />
persuade himself that there is no God, that there is no judgment. [1921:145]<br />
In Why Scientists Accept Evolution, R.T. Clark and J. Bales argue that nineteenth<br />
century scientists “accepted evolution because of their anti-supernatural bias, and not<br />
because of the weight of scientific evidence” (1966:108). (They claim that twentieth<br />
century scientists accept it, uncritically, simply because their teachers and predecessors<br />
did.) People are so opposed to God, says Carl Theodore Schwarze in The Harmony of<br />
<strong>Science</strong> and the Bible (1942), that they accept any silly theory, such as evolution, that “gives<br />
the lie to Scripture.” “The reason people believe in evolution,” says evangelist John R.<br />
Rice, founder and editor of Sword of the Lord, “is not that it is reasonable but that it is an<br />
excuse <strong>for</strong> not believing in God and direct creation” (In the Beginning..., 1975:43).<br />
In Evolution: The Incredible Hoax, Homer Duncan, director of Missionary<br />
Crusader in Lubbock, Texas, gives as one of the primary reasons people believe in<br />
evolution that “man wishes to escape the authority of God and the authority of His<br />
Word”:<br />
Human nature does not like the restraints that are put on us by believing in God. We want to be free. We<br />
want to do what we want to do. We do not want to be under the authority of God, or under the authority of<br />
the Bible. Men refuse to recognize the awful reality of sin. They do not wish to believe that they will be<br />
held accountable <strong>for</strong> their sins. [1978:52]<br />
Satan uses the theory of evolution to exploit this desire to escape God: “The theory of<br />
evolution is one of Satan’s master strokes.”<br />
The conflict between creation and evolution is a major part of the gigantic battle between God and Satan.<br />
It is a battle <strong>for</strong> the minds and souls of men. The Biblical account of creation and atheistic evolution are<br />
diametrically opposed to each other. Both positions cannot be true. Common sense compels me to believe