helps us understand what is present in the natural world and how it works but
it does not offer the answer to every question about life.
is much better at telling us what is not true than telling us what is the final
word of truth on an issue.
Christian understands truth to come from special revelation (The Bible) as well
as human observation, experience, and reason (science).
comes from two spheres of knowing.
The Scriptures of the Christian faith (Bible) claim to be the very words of God
(II Tim.3:16) and they are
infallible in all matters of which they speak. This includes the prologue of
Genesis (chapters 1-11). Jesus referred to this material as historical fact
(Matt.19:4; 24:38; Mk.10:6; Lk.17:27). Elsewhere in Scripture, “Adam” is viewed
as an historical person (I Chron.1:11; Hos.6:7; Job 31:33; Lk.3:38; Rom.5:14;
I Cor.11:3; I Tim.2:14; Jude 14). What we are suggesting here is simply that:
The Spiritual world
The Physical world
Questions of why?
Questions of how?
is difficult to quickly dismiss a part of Scripture (Gen. 1-11) as without
factual merit without calling into question the integrity of all of Scripture.
This is not to say that Gen.1-2 are written as scientifically sensitive or
historical in accord with modern notions of historiography.
Scripture’s claim about itself is impressive and must be examined along with
external facts about itself before one dismisses it as fallible.
have, on the one hand, what claims to be an infallible divine testimony of
creation (in Gen. 1-2), and on the other a human theory of origins. Are they
consistent? Should we expect them to be?
2. THE ROLE OF THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING
God reveals truth in two spheres - CREATION (general) & SCRIPTURE
(special). “Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with
the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling,
however, springs from the sphere of religion.” Physicist
Albert Eistein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, a symposium (1941)
When man limits his search for truth to empirical observations of the
creation he will despair of finding meaning and truth.
Man is incurably religious though he may not follow a “traditional
religion”. The question is - In whom does
he place his trust? or What does he worship?
Man’s origin and relationship to the cosmos are important issues in
Biblical revelation. Note: The Bible is
not concerned so much with explaining the mechanism of human development as the
meaning and relationships of man.
There are two
contrasting kinds of wisdom - (not science vs. Scripture) but (open vs.
Wisdom that is not open
to the spiritual, supernatural dimension of life will not only be limited but
misguided on many counts.
different views of science
Much of the current
debate surrounds the proper boundaries of science.
Is science to be
defined as the logical search and explanation of truth.
Or is science to be
defined only in terms of the naturalistic causes in explaining everything we
b. In the debate over origins, the scientific
establishment often uses the second definition of science and outlaws any
questioning of naturalistic evolution (special creation, intelligent design, or
even theistic evolution). The questions are not did life evolve naturally (this
is a faith assumption) but rather, how
did it evolve naturally?
Christian scholars have made serious attempts to harmonize the Scriptural data
with the Scientific Theory, while others insist that it is impossible. Let me
suggest four alternatives to this dilemma.
a. NATURALISM: Accept the apparent
discrepancies between the Bible and science as real and apparent evidence for
the evolutionary theory as the most probable, thereby assuming that the
Biblical record is insignificant historically. This is the view of nearly all
non-theists and some Christians.
CREATIONISM: Accept the apparent
discrepancies between the Bible and science as real and apparent evidence for
the Biblical record (correctly interpreted) as the only valid indication of
manner and meaning of creation. This view would not disregard true science, but
view evolution as a false theory deduced from inadequate evidence and evidence
wrongly interpreted. Many Christians hold this view. This view generally takes
one of two forms.
1. Old-age or Progressive Creation: God
guided the process of development, injecting information at key states in the
development of the universe and life to design new forms or organization.
2. Young-age Creation: God created the
universe and the major life forms with in a short period of time (some say six
literal days), about 10,000 (rather than billions of) years ago.
THEISTIC EVOLUTION: Accept
much of the theory of evolution but reject the materialistic and naturalistic
presuppositions that so often go with it. Understand the first two chapters of
Genesis as a general but not technical description of creation that
accommodates an evolutionary mechanism.
I am impressed by the hypothesis of E.J. Carnell which he calls “threshold
evolution” (a wide variety of change — evolution — within the
“kinds” — which are fixed — originally created by God.) This theory seems to
satisfy the hard scientific data (gaps in fossil record and evolution of some
forms) as well as the Biblical material.
claims that evidence for design in the universe can be detected empirically.
This position can embrace any of positions “b-d” above. Earlier scientists made
a distinction between “natural causes” and “intelligent causes.” Charles Thaxton identifies the marks of
intelligent design as “specified complexity” – a complex structure that fits a
preconceived pattern. Fred Hoyle, though an atheist, states the implications
bluntly: “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super
intellect has influenced or controlled the physics.”
significance of the evolution debate
group with authority to tell a culture’s dominant creation story functions as a
kind of priesthood, defining what shall be deemed ultimate truth. In the late
19th-century conflict over Darwinism, T.H. Huxley pursued a
deliberate strategy to overthrowing the clergy and ordaining scientists as
society’s new priesthood.
origin of the universe and especially the origin of man has always been an
important and fascinating subject. Until the work of Charles Darwin, the
question was handled by theologians taking their cues from the first chapters
of Genesis. Darwin’s work, which was the first to offer a plausible mechanism
for natural evolution, won the almost unanimous support of the scientific
community by the end of the 19th century. Many Christians have likewise found
the theory attractive and even compelling.
I speak of evolution in these notes I am generally speaking of naturalistic
evolution - the popular secular model that does not allow for a supernatural
element in its system.
3. What do you think?
a. “You can’t accept one part of
science because it brings you good things like electricity and penicillin and
throw away another part because it brings you some things you don’t like about
the origin of life.”
b. “Science can only be created by
those who are thoroughly indued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from
the sphere of religion." Albert
c. The British museum of Natural History,
located in London celebrated its centennial in 1981 by opening a new exhibition
on Darwin’s theory. One of the first things a visitor encountered upon entering
the exhibit was a sign which read as follows: “Have you ever wondered why there are so many different kinds of living
things? One idea is that all the living things we see today have evolved from a
distant ancestor by a process of gradual change. How could evolution have
occurred? How could one species change into another? The exhibition in this
hall looks at one possible explanation - the explanation of Charles Darwin.”
An adjacent poster included the statement that “Another view is that God created all living things perfect and
unchanging.” A brochure asserted that “the
concept of exhalation by natural selection is not, strictly speaking,
scientific,” because it has been established by logical deduction rather
than empirical demonstration. The brochure observed that “if the theory of exhalation is true,” it provides an explanation
for the “groups-within-groups”
arrangement of nature described by the taxonomists. The general tenor of the
exhibit was that Darwinism is an important theory but not something which is
unreasonable to doubt. How do you think the prominent scientists reacted to
this exhibit? With outrage and fury - demanding that it be replaced by
something that would not confuse the public with respect to the fact of
evolution. P. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, pp133-134
are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and
interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories
for explaining them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but
apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human
beings evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed
mechanism or by some other, yet to be identified.” Stephen Jay
Gould, Harvard Professor and famous evolutionist.
A. The issues
must be properly defined.
The Evolutionary Theory
word “evolution” literally means “an unrolling.” Some accurate synonyms would
be “change,” “development,” “movement,” or “process.” In biology, it has come
to refer to a natural process whereby present life forms are thought to have
originated from simple primitive forms of life. Charles Darwin’s work is
usually associated with the development of this theory as a naturalistic
explanation for man’s origin from lower forms of animal life. It is now
generally held that these alleged simple ancestors also developed in a natural
way from non-living matter (prebiotic “chemical” evolution). At a popular level
the theory generally includes the following elements:
a. Mutations (sudden variations which
cause the offspring to differ from their parents in well-marked
characteristics) and natural selection (survival
of the fittest) work together as the mechanisms of evolution.
extremely long period of time
(600,000,000 years) would enable (by chance) the above mechanisms to account
for life as we know it today.
fossil record generally confirms the
theory by demonstrating that simpler life forms are found in lower strata of
the earth’s crust and that forms become progressively more complex in newer
2. The apparent conflict between popular science
and popular understandings of Genesis.
Biblical account seems to lean over backward to tell us that man is in some
important way, distinct from lower animals. He is distinguished from animals by
having been made in the likeness and image of God. Gen.2:7 seems to clearly
imply that the physical body of Adam was created from non-living matter.
Biblical account describes the unit of life that God created as “kind”. It
seems, according to the Biblical record, “fixed,” i.e., immutable. This “kind”
is not to be correlated with the “species” of modern science, but no doubt
represents a much broader category. Note that one may scrap the doctrine of the
“fixity of species” without compromising the biblical record.
to a 1982 Gallup poll aimed at
measuring nationwide opinion:
47% of respondents agreed with the
statement that “God created man pretty
much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” This
would seem to mark those respondents as creationists in a relatively narrow
sense. Of college graduates 25% hold
40% accepted evolution as a process
guided by God.
9% identified themselves as
believers in a naturalistic evolutionary process not guided by God. Of college
graduates 16.5% take this position. The
philosophy of the 9% is now to be taught in the schools as unchallenged truth.
This is part of the reason many Christians are frustrated with the way this
issue is treated.
Among American high school science teachers, 40% believe in a personal God. But a survey by Edward Larson and
Larry Witham (Scientific American, Sept. 1999) reveals that more than 90 %
of NAS (National Academy of Science) members reject belief in a personal God
and, think science itself compels that conclusion.
What makes these statistics remarkable is the fact that they have not
changed in the last two decades.
of American adults:
According to Newsweek in 1987, “By one
count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and
life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...” That would make the
support for creation science among those branches of science that deal with the
earth and its life forms at about 0.14% However, the American public have a
very different perception.
The Gallup Organizations periodically
asks the American public about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They
have conducted a poll of U.S. adults in 1982, 1991, 1993 and 1997. By keeping
their wording identical, each year's results is comparable to the others.
Results for the 1991-NOV-21 to 24 poll
Group of adults
created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last
has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but
God guided this process, including man's creation.
has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God
had no part in this process.
No high school diploma
Income over $50,000
Income under $20,000
Political science professor George
Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing
and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have
remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15
years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover,
the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were
first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated,
Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other
things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites
and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and
Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic
are dealing with a conflict that is probably more philosophical than
scientific. The question of human origin lies beyond the realm of hard science
and is resolved by one’s presuppositions and world-view as much as by hard
B. The significance of the issue
must be recognized.
There are implications that logically
follow the evolutionary theory, making it far more significant than an academic
challenge to a literal interpretation of a few verses in Genesis 1.
1. A Philosophy of Life
The theory of biological evolution has become (in a sense) a super
theory or naturalistic philosophy to explain
all present day phenomena. A view that suggests that the whole of reality (from cosmology to human behavior) is
evolution — a single process of self-transformation (Ed., J.R. Newman. Evolution and Genetics. New York: Simon
& Schuster, 1955, p. 278).
The full title of
Darwin’s book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life.
This may explain why Darwin’s book was at first more favorably welcomed by
laissez-faire capitalists, social planners, and generals than by biological
(the scientific, rational control of human breeding through Darwinian
mechanisms of selection) was popular in the wake of Darwin and supported by
leading humanists like, Sidney Webb, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, John Maynard
Keynes, and George Bernard Shaw.
Our deepest intuitions
of right and wrong, are said to be guided by the emotional control centers of
the brain, which evolved by natural selection to help the human animal exploit
opportunities and ovoid threats in the natural environment. See Edward O
Wilson’s Sociobiology 1975.
racism and militarism of Hitler and
Mussolini were in large measure built upon the philosophical base established
in the 19th century by Friedrich Neitzche and Ernst Haechel, both of whom were
rabid promulgators of Darwinism among human societies. Huxley’s sense that the
black race was generally inferior to the white race and Darwin’s view that man
was superior to woman are legacies of evolution that have been too quickly
Human ethics and moral codes are explained by
many secularists as the product of biology and environment. Religion is
understood as the formulation of an artificial construct to authenticate an
ethical or political value system that is better explained through natural
genetic and environmental forces.
For an excellent short
review of this subject I recommend Philip J. Sampson’s “6 Modern Myths about
Christianity & Western Civilization.” Chapter 2.
2. The Nature of Man
the evolutionist is correct in viewing modern man as merely a link in the chain
of life (which started with the simplest forms and is even now progressing to a
more highly developed individual), the whole concept of a fallen race (sin)
could be reinterpreted as a lack of evolutionary development. Man doesn’t need
a redeemer, he needs more time to evolve.
it any surprise that modern religious thought is a bit embarrassed by the
doctrine of a space/time “fall” with a space/time “redeemer?” True salvation
for the evolutionist comes when we learn to speed up the process of social
evolution by improving our environment.
can one escape the conclusion that ethics are subjective in an evolving
no divine purpose in our life is rationally detectable, then the value and
dignity of the individual human being drops precipitously. “If the worlds and its creatures developed purely by material,
physical forces, they could not have been designed and have no purpose or goal
-- this seems to be the message of evolution.” Science
on Trial: The Case for Evolution by Douglas Futuma.
3. The Nature of God
it possible for God to bring about life through the evolutionary process?
Theistic evolutionists feel this is not only possible, it is probable. But
critics ask, what kind of God would this be? Is natural selection (survival of
the fittest, dog eat dog, denial of the weak in favor of the strong) consistent
with the Judeo-Christian God or, better yet, the Christ who created all (Col.
1:16) and yet seemed to prefer the natural losers? If the evolutionist is
correct, must we assume that the wars and conflicts (which Christ called sin)
are the natural mechanisms designed by God to bring about change? These are
questions that a theistic evolutionist is pressed to answer.
observe in nature both order and disorder, justice and injustice. How are we to
explain this phenomena? Is this best explained by the Biblical account of
special creation and the fall or is the materialistic evolutionary model to be
4. The Nature of Revelation
evolutionary theory suggests that all phenomena are in a continual process of
becoming. If we are to embrace this hypothesis, our view of the Bible will be
affected in two ways:
will be forced to call into question the historical accuracy of not only
Genesis 1, but also the remainder of the Old Testament and New Testament as
witness to the historicity of Gen.1-11 (Matt.19:4-5; 24:37; Luke 11:51;
Rom.5:12-14; I Tim.2:13-15) and
creation as a completed act (Gen.2:1; Col.1:16; Rev.4:11; Ps.148:5).
will quickly conclude, as did the rationalistic scholars of the 19th century,
that the Bible is a record of the evolution of a religious tradition and not
authoritative except as it reveals God’s work in history.
5. Theory as dogma.
is not uncommon to hear evolution taught not as a theory but as a proven fact.
The passion with which some “scientists” present this dogma suggests that it is
more a religious faith than a scientific theory. “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not
to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked,
but I’d rather not consider that).” Richard
Dawkins Oxford Zoology Prof.
evaluation of dysteleological evolution
purpose of this section is not to refute the theory of evolution but rather to
call into question an over confident belief in an evolutionary model as the
only or best possible explanation for life as we know it.
media and public education often give the impression that the evolutionary
model is proven beyond any reasonable doubt and that anyone who would question
it is uninformed, ignorant, or sinister.
is reason to believe that the evolutionary principle when used to explain the
origin of life as we know it is less than completely convincing even though
there is evidence put forth in its support.
a person to accept a theory on the basis of some authoritarian decree is
inconsistent with the scientific principle. This is true whether the theory
comes from the Bible or from the scientific establishment.
will attempt to present the strongest popular arguments that I know for the
theory of evolution and then raise questions that have been asked in challenge
to those who would suggest that macroevolution and chemical evolution are
We might note at the outset that the evolutionary model is an attempt to
explain the origin of the vast diversity of life on the earth assuming that all
life had its beginning from one common simple form.
A. Arguments used to
support an evolutionary explanation for the origin of man.
NOTE - Basic observations
of science with respect to evolution from a typical college level textbook. (Biology:
Life on Earth, Teresa & Gerald Audesirk, Prentice-Hall, 1996 P.311)
populations of all organisms have the potential to increase rapidly, because
organism can produce far more offspring than are required merely to replace the
the numbers of most natural populations and the resources available to maintain
them (such as food and appropriate habitat) remain relatively constant over
Therefore, there is competition of survival and reproduction. In each generation,
many individuals must die young, fail to reproduce, produce few offspring, or
produce less-fit offspring that fail to survive and reproduce in their turn.
members of a population differ from one another in their ability to obtain resources,
withstand environmental extremes, escape predators, and so on.
The most well adapted (the fittest) individuals in one generation will usually
leave the most offspring. This is natural
selection; the process by which the environment selects for those
individuals whose traits best adapt them to that particular environment.
least some of the variation in adaptive traits among individuals are due to
genetic differences that may be passed on from parent to offspring.
Over many generations, differential, or unequal, reproduction among individuals
with different genetic makeup changes the overall genetic composition of the
population. This is evolution through natural selection.
1. Physical similarities between lower and
higher forms of life - i.e. humans and other mammals, are observed. This is
said to suggest a relationship through common ancestry.
a. Gross similarities -
unrelated animals often take on similar physical characteristics (seals and
penguins for example). This is best explained by the pressure of a similar
environment on each species to adapt to that environment.
bones in the forelimbs of some mammals and birds are similar (homologous structures) despite wide
differences in function. This is best explained by a common ancestor and
presence of vestigial structures (that
serve no apparent purpose) like molar teeth in vampire bats and pelvic bones in
whales and some snakes are best understood through an evolutionary model.
4. Embryological stages of animals often
follow similar paths. For example fish, turtles, chickens, mice, and humans all
show signs of tails and gill slits early in development.
b. Biochemical similarities -
the most fundamental biochemical levels, all living cells are very similar. For
example, all cells have DNA as the
carrier of genetic information; genetic code to translate that genetic
information into proteins; all use roughly the same set of 20 amino acids to build proteins; and all
use ATP as an intracellular energy
carrier. Humans and chimpanzees share about 99% of their genomes.
2. Cytochrome c and blood proteins are remarkably similar across a huge spectrum
of species. Further, an evolutionary tree comparing the degree of differences
in amino acid sequence between species closely resembles the evolutionary trees
that have been deduced from anatomical and embryological studies.
fossil record suggests an
was impressed with the similarity of fossil species to living species in any
one district suggesting evolution by descent.
one accepts the popular method of dating fossils it can be seen that the older
fossils are simpler life forms than the later.
This seems to suggest evolutionary development.
is most dramatically seen in the fossil record of the horse, giraffe, elephant,
and several mollusks.
A proposed history of life on earth based on the fossil record.
of solar system and Earth. 4600 - 3500 million years ago.
of first living cells. 3500 - 590 million years ago.
explosion of most modern life forms. 590 - 505 million years ago.
of mammals and dinosaurs. 248 - 213 million years ago.
of man. 2 million years ago.
dated at billions of years of age
Fossils of cells
3. Microevolution is a recognized fact in
nature and the laboratory. Note that when people argue “evolution is a proven
fact” they are often referring to microevolution. When people argue “evolution
is a hypothetical theory” they are referring to macroevolution and chemical
example we can segregate members from a species, subject them to differing
environments and over a period of time observe alterations that are passed on
various breeds of dogs provide a striking example of artificial selection.
seem to adapt and change with their
environment. The famed peppered moth is an example.
observation of natural selection.
This was Darwin’s observation and today
it is the unifying theory for all biology.
biogeography combined with plate
tectonics demonstrates the relatedness of species.
a. When Darwin went around the coast of South
America, he observed that the same ecological niche was occupied by similar but
clearly different species.
b. He also notices that despite deep similarity
of physical features in the Galapagos and Cape Verde Island, the Galapagos
Island were filled with species different from but related to those on the west
coast of South America, whereas the Cape Verde Islands were filled with species
different from but related to those on the west coast of Africa.
absence of any compelling alternative.
must be understood that science is going to assume and seek a natural mechanism
to explain the diversity and unity of all living things.
principle of special creation may be possible but it never is an option from
the naturalist’s perspective.
the pre-modern period the origin of life question was answered in the following
generation from both non living matter and other, unrelated forms of life.
from a tree are falling; upon one side they strike the water and slowly turn
into fishes, upon the other side they strike the land and turn into birds.” 1609
were thought to come from meat, mice from mixtures of sweaty shirts and wheat,
present (and extinct) life forms were a special creation by God as described in
the first chapters of Genesis.
has also been argued that the less than perfect match in nature between form
and function suggests that a Creator God was not responsible. If he designed
everything perfectly for its task then he did a sloppy job.
6. The usefulness of evolutionary models
in biological science.
evolutionary model has been very useful in enabling scientists to make
predictions for research and discovery of facts about life.
reason that anaturalism is preferred by scientists is because it works.” William
B.Provine, Professor of the History of Science at Cornell University
heart and soul of the scientist is free inquiry into the phenomena of life. The
creationist model threatens to kill that inquiry by declaring the scientist’s
questions of how, why, when, etc. as fruitless in light of the fact that God
did it and finished it.
theory of evolution can be likened to the teenage boy who commits a terrible
crime and is not caught until he is 35 years old. But in the mean time he has
been a loving valued citizen that has won the respect of the whole community.
He may very well be guilty but anyone who dares try to prosecute him will
experience stiff opposition from all who have benefited from his life.
Evolutionary theory has proven itself so helpful in unlocking the secrets of
natures that it is assumed to be a fact in spite of the problems. In the mind
of many evolutionists the arguments posed against evolution are not so much
flawed as lacking breadth of perspective.
B. Critical questions put
to the above arguments.
similarities point to a common ancestor or to common function and or common
designer? One’s presuppositions seem to be the determining factor in one’s
conclusions with respect to this question.
Does not the fossil record pose at
least as many problems as it does evidence for evolution?
“Evidence from fossils now
points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans
learned in high school.” Newsweek Nov.3, 1980
“Gradual evolution expressed the
cultural and political biases of 19th century liberalism.” Steven J. Gould
Popular examples of prehistoric missing links have been disappointing;
- Neanderthals (just people), Piltdown (hoax), Nebraska Man (pig’s tooth), Java
Man (bad science), Zinjanthropus
d. As the fossil data accumulates, gaps in
the fossil record become more distinct rather than less distinct. It is now
widely accepted that the gaps will not be closed with more data as Darwin had
hoped. This has led scientists to suggest more complex explanations of the
fossil record that do not follow the classical Darwinian model.
change within a particular kind of animal (horse) on a confined scale prove
evolution on a large scale (reptiles becoming birds)? There seems to be a
need for some clear evidence in addition to microevolution before one can be
confident that macroevolution has taken place.
of experiments show that the change produced by breeding does not continue at
a steady rate from generation to generation. Instead, change is rapid at
first, then levels off and eventually reaches a limit that breeders cannot
scientific finding has contradicted the basic principle that change in living
things is limited.
adaptation is observed within various types of life (dogs, horses, etc.) but
it has not been observed so as to bridge the gap between differing types of
life (fish to birds to dogs to humans etc.).
If we can observe changes in (dogs for example) as a result of
adaptation through controlled breeding and environments why don’t we see it
taking place across broader classifications of life (birds becoming mammals
for example) in a similar rapid fashion?
difficulties in the data.
Does not natural selection tends to be a conserving force, weeding out
radical or abnormal tendencies?
Are there not genetic limitations beyond which a species will not
Do similarities prove common ancestry or only suggest it?
Could they just as well prove common designer?
of an alternative
The Biblical alternatives are rejected because they
involve a supernatural element. While there are rational challenges to idea
that God spoke into existence life forms pretty much as they exist today,
does it follow that this hypothesis is impossible or without its support from
the data? For example, the idea of a point in time origin of the universe is
supported by a number of recognized scientists.
of the model
One must ask if it is indeed the theory of evolution that
is so useful or is it the observations of science in a general sense?
Note that if the evolutionary model is
true then we must conclude that:
Something arose form
nothing as the universe came into existence.
Order arose from chaos
to give the appearance of design in the universe.
Life arose from
non-life, intelligence arose from non-intelligence, and personality arose form
New diverse life forms
arose from an existing simple life form.
The evidence to the
contrary is insignificant or invalid.
Genetic limits seem to
be built into each life form.
Cyclical change rather
than linier progressive change within life forms seems to be the pattern of
or the “mouse trap” phenomena (it has no meaningful function unless and until
all parts work together). Darwin wrote, “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 break down.” We
now know that there are many organs, systems, and processes in life that fit
that description – the cell, the eye, etc.
(living things share common DNA) can just as easily suggest a common designer
or maker than a common ancestry.
transitional forms suggests that gradual development of, say fins to feathers,
would be problematic in that they would have no function during the transition.
The fossil record has
gaps. Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist) notes “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.” Evolution’s Erratic Pace, “Natural History” 86 (19770: pp13-14
The absence of any
transitional forms within the diversity of life at the present time. We do not
go to the zoo confused as to which side of the cage we belong. There are no
partially human life forms.
Much of this material is taken from I
Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek, Crossway
C. Challenges to the
theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of human life.
scientific discoveries challenge the materialistic presuppositions that are
normally associated with the evolutionary theory.
a. Einstein’s theory of relativity
suggested a time bound cosmos that meant that theories of evolution could not
count on an infinite amount of time to facilitate the process.
advent of the electron microscope
forced us to recognize the complexity of the cell, suggesting that the building
blocks of life are far more complex than can be accounted for through a process
as simple as Darwin’s theory.
Darwin’s theory of evolution was introduced, the complexity and diversity in
living organisms was attributed to God. Evolution however, offered an
alternative natural explanation for this diversity - mutation and natural
selection. But as our knowledge of the vast complexity of life began to unfold
the evolutionary theory became stressed by the vast time and information
required. The gap between non-living and living things is huge.
2. For example: The entire non-living
cosmos consists of 235 exponential bits of information while a single living
cell consists of 20,000,000,000 bits of information. This gap is
incomprehensible and can not be accounted for through natural evolution. There
simply is not enough time.
theory” in science suggests “informed structure” for DNA and
proteins. This has set scientists looking for a causal mechanism beyond known
natural sources. In other words, DNA does not consist of random or repeated
patterns of structure. It seems to have been designed.
1. Note that the genetic code includes
astounding waste and uneconomical variation. The full genome does have high
information content, but it also has high nonsense content. Is nonsense
(including repeats and stretches that do not code for anything used in that
organism) a sign of intelligence, or of chance?
2. Because mind or intelligent design is a
necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an
intelligent cause (but only in the sense that we now know of no other origin
for such a complex information system).
3. No natural process creates genetic
himself obligingly offered a way to falsify his theory, writing: “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 break down.”
studies suggest that human beings come from one original couple.
“We are finding that humans have very, very
shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor. That
indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe and then
it spread out from there.” Michael Hammer,
University of Arizona writing in Nature.
2. chemical evolution seems to be
mathematically improbable if not impossible.
life to come into being, scientists agree that four developments at the level
of chemical evolution must take place.
formation of simple organic compounds like carbon.
formation of complex organic compounds like proteins.
concentration and enclosure of these organic compounds.
linking of chemical reactions involved in growth, metabolism, and reproduction.
claim that time offsets the improbability of the events taking place. Dr. G.
Wald (professor of Biology, Harvard) writing in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1955.) says, “One has only to contemplate
the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a
living organism is impossible. Yet here we are — as a result, I believe, in
spontaneous generation.” Given this
difficulty it is hypothesized that the ancient earth environment must have been
very different (than it is today) in ways that would enable the prebiotic
evolutionary process to take place. But this sounds like the kind of
unwarranted assumption that would not be tolerated if made by any critic of the
M. Eden at M.I.T. has made various computations of the probability of the
formation of a complex organism by chance and has always found that the age of
the earth (5,000,000,000 years according to most evolutionists) is insufficient
to provide enough time for the probability to become different from zero (Mathematical challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
interpretation of evolution. Philadelphia: Wistor Institute, 1967.)
2. Many scientists consider probabilities on
the order of 2 x10+50 to render an event as impossibility.
probability that proteins essential for life as we know it appeared
simultaneously in the primitive milieu on earth is on the order of 2 x10+94.
leading information scientist, Marcel E. Golay, calculates the odds against any
living cell or any new organ being added to an existing animal as 10+450 to 1.
probability of one human couple evolving from non-living material is on the
order of 2 x10+40,000.
the universe was 80 billion light years in diameter and that entire space was
filled with electrons, they would number only 10+170.
an untrained golfer to hit 100 consecutive hole-in-ones from 200 yards blind folded
and spun in different directions after each swing is a sure thing when compared
to the probability noted above.
c. “The statistical problems that have now been
recognized as besetting even the evolution of a single human, much less a human
pair able to breed, are such that many scientists are arguing for “monogenesis”
- the development of the entire species from a single ancestral pair or
ancestries, which is in principle the same thing that Genesis teaches.” Harold
spite of these calculations we often find statements like the following in
modern biology texts. “In summary, evidence suggests that sometime
between 4.6 billion and 3.5 billion years ago, life arose on earth, generated
from non living matter.” Albert Towle, Modern
Biology pp 211. “Even though geochemists may never know
exactly what the primordial atmosphere was like, it is certain that organic
molecules were synthesized on the ancient Earth.” “Prebiotic synthesis would
not have been very efficient or very fast; nonetheless, in a few hundred
million years, large quantities of organic molecules could accumulate,
especially since they didn’t break down nearly as fast back then.” Teresa
& Gerald Audesirk, Biology Life on Earth 4th edition 1996, pp 366.
3. Astronomical observations suggest an origin
at a point in time and an old universe.
a. “The latest astronomical results indicate
that at some point in the past the chain of cause and effect terminated
abruptly. An important event occurred--the origin of the world--for which there
is no known cause or explanation within the realm of science. The Universe
flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.” Robert Jastro
light takes a known and finite amount of time to travel from one part of the
universe to another we can estimate the age of the cosmos as very old.
4. Gaps in the fossil record remain
contemporary paleontologists such as David Raup and Niles Elbredge say that the
fossil problem is as serious now as it was in Darwin’s day, despite the most
determined efforts of scientists to find the missing links.
is interesting to note that the sharpest criticism of Darwin’s theory when
first proposed came from those who were students of the fossil record. Darwin
himself recognized the problem and did not use the fossil record as evidence
for his theory.
c. “The origin and earliest evolution of the
metazoan (multi celled) phyla cannot be documented from fossil evidence.” Biologists
T. Dobzhansky, F.J. Ayala, G.L. Stebbins, and J.W. Valentine, in Evolution
should be noted that evolutionists are fully aware of this criticism and refuse
to let it threaten the theory of evolution. They work hard at creating a case
for special effects (punctuated equilibrium) that interrupt the otherwise
uniform process of natural selection, mutation, etc. Thus muting the troubling
lack of evidence for the theory from the fossil record.
5. The present scarcity of transitional forms
of life would not be expected if evolution were still in process.
forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in
the Cambrian period (500-570 million years ago) until the present the basic
forms of life seem to have been unaltered in any radical way.
fact that present species and kinds seem fixed is no little problem to the
theory. Common sense tells us that the simplest observation of this phenomenon
does not support the theory of evolution. If the popular notion of evolution through
natural selection and mutation were true one might expect a seamless display of
life without dramatic gaps between species (especially as they are observed in
a particular geographical environment). Yet when we look at Africa for example,
we see dramatic diversity in the same habitat.
should be noted that evolutionists are fully aware of this objection and go to
great lengths to offer possible explanations. But one might ask, why should the
evolutionist not find this point troubling in that it certainly seems to be out
of place with the theory.
6. The laws of thermodynamics suggest that
evolution would not be expected.
NOTE: These laws state:
Matter/Energy cannot be created or destroyed (law #1), but it can be changed
from one form to another.
When these changes take place entropy (in turning) increases, resulting in a
tendency toward disorder (simplicity) as opposed to orderliness (complexity)
a. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states
that matter inclines itself toward the state of maximum randomness, not maximum
complexity of organization. In every transformation of energy, some of the
available energy is lost through heat so that, in effect, the universe is
gradually running down, or workable energy is wearing out. It is contrary to
the known laws of science to assume the availability of free energy to be used
in the process since energy is dissipated, not stored up, in non-living matter.
Through entropy (wearing out), living systems move toward disorganization
(chaos, and death) rather than toward organization (improvement, and life).
Therefore, the more time involved, the greater the chance that living things
will die and non-living things will not spring to life. For the process to
involve free energy, that energy would have to originate outside the closed
system of this universe. The fluctuation argument that entropy can decrease in
one area of the universe if it increases by the same amount elsewhere, could
only happen over a short period of time compared with the age of the universe
(10,000,000,000 years) and if there were some means of absorbing energy and
using it to increase complexity. Living organisms can do this, but it could not
happen during the prebiotic period, or the early single-cell stage.
Note: Entropy normally increases more rapidly in
systems open to influx or external energy.
Strictly speaking, the earth is an open system. The origin of life requires a significant
decrease in the configurational entropy that does not take place in our present
suggests that the universe had a beginning and is wearing down rather than
evolving toward higher, more complex forms of life.
fact that we can observe species becoming extinct before our very eyes and have
never been able to see a new species emerge seems strange if the evolutionary
model is true.
7. A Credible Mechanism for Evolution has not
yet been found.
NOTE: Evolution depends on the
existence of a mechanism whereby new norms can arise. At first, genetics
promised to give the answer (a combination of gene mutations and natural
selection). However, this mechanism seems improbable for the following reasons:
mutations — over 99% are lethal or harmful (A.M.
Winchester (Genetics, Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1951, p. 290)
mutations are recessive. The few dominants known are lethal or harmful.
Pre-adaptation requires the unlikely juxtaposition of a neutral (but
potentially beneficial) mutation and a change in environment. Unless these two
events happen close together, the gene will probably be lost. (E.B.
Ford. Mendelism and Evolution.
London: Methuen, 1949, p. 44).
reverse mutations are known. Sometimes they occur more readily than the
original mutation, thus rendering long-term change improbable (H.F.
Blum. Time's Arrow and Evolution.
Princeton: University Press, 1951, p. 148).
high mortality rate before mating in wild species (99% for land organisms, and
over 99.9% for marine organisms) means that most mutations will be lost (A.
Buzzati-Traverso. Cold Spring Harbour
Symposia on Quantitative Biology. 15, 16, 1959.)
size is critical. In a large population, mutations get lost. In a small
population, they spread unchecked by selection, even if harmful.
changes (translocations and inversions) usually lower viability if heterozygous
and are nearly always lethal if homozygous (J.W.
Klotz. Genes, Genesis, and Evolution.
St. Louis: Concordia, 1970, p. 309).
doubling (polyploidy) is almost exclusively limited to plants, and is regarded
as being of only minor significance in evolution. “Polyploidy is a complicating
force rather than one which promotes progressive evolution.” (G.L.
Stebbins. Variation and Evolution in
Plants. New York: Columbia University Press, 1950).
g. “The efforts of biologists, paleontologists,
etc. to come up with a “naturalist” theory of evolution that will fit the facts
embedded in the historical record has by now an air of desperation. Environmental changes seem clearly inadequate
to explain the origin of species, and so do theories based on genetic
mutation. If there is a “natural”
mechanism at work - using “natural” to mean “causal” in strictly scientific
terms - we have not yet discovered it.”
Irving Kristol, editor of The Public
8. The Cambrian explosion does not seem to fit
the classic evolutionary model.
rapid origin of animal life in the Cambrian period.
Cambrian explosion (about 530 million years ago) resulted in the sudden
appearance of several well developed species.
was to take place gradually and slowly over a long period of time.
body plans appear in the Cambrian period.
is an astounding number of new life forms that can not be explained by natural
selection or any known environmental factors.
theory does not have a mechanism to explain these new life forms.
Cambrian explosion consisted of animals with “body plans” or phylum that set
the framework for later animal forms.
find well-developed and stable life forms in the Cambrian that represent the
trunks of the evolutionary trees.
theory suggests that changes take place at the lower (species) level and spread
out to form more stable body plans (phylum).
life forms seem unrelated to Precambrian life forms.
5% or less of these forms show validated evidence of Precambrian parentage.
phenomena challenges the principle of continuity of all life forms, a major
doctrine of evolutionary theory.
body plans of Cambrian life forms are quite diverse.
forms of life seen in the Cambrian explosion seem unrelated to each other.
theory would suggest that this was not to be expected.
differences in life forms in the Cambrian period.
differences that exist between life forms in this period are at the phyla
level. There are few examples of different species at this level. Few Cambrian
animals seem related to each other.
theory suggests that intermediary forms should be present since changes were to
arise from the lower (species) level.
stability of Cambrian stem animals.
body plans of Cambrian stem animals that survived are extremely stable and they
have remained essentially unchanged up to the present time.
theory suggests that change should be taking place and be observable in the
direction of change in phyla.
Cambrian phyla branch out into related life forms but they do not form new
phyla. No new life form came into existence
after the Cambrian period.
theory suggests that changes take place from the bottom up.
9. The irreducible complexity of Biochemical
systems is difficult to explain with the evolutionary model.
are systems that consist of several interlocking parts, all of which must be in
place before they can function.
eye is one example.
analogy - A mousetrap does not evolve out of wood and metal from a crude trap
to an effective trap. It does not function until all parts are in proper order.
types of irreducible systems
that consist of interdependent parts that must be assembled all at once, i.e.
the hair-like cilium functions like an oar and requires the interplay of more
than 200 different proteins.
that are sequential, i.e. the blood-clotting mechanism requires numerous steps
which are exquisitely timed by a series of catalysts to ensure that blood
clotting occurs at the site of a wound and at no other place or time.
that depend on delicate recognition signals, i.e. certain molecules in the cell
act as transport vessels that recognize the right “pick-up” and “drop-off”
zones, as well as the correct materials to carry.
10. Sexual reproduction is not what
an evolutionary model would suggest.
every two offspring that a sexual species produces, only one (the female) can
produce further offspring. Both offspring, however, of an asexual species can
go on to reproduce. Thus asexual species should rapidly outbreed sexual ones.
This is not the case however.
prominent evolutionary biologist George C. Williams calls the problem a
“crisis” and has written that if sex did not exist “there would be no mystery.”
11. The popular idea of embryonic
development passing through primitive life forms has been exposed as fake.
high school biology textbooks show embryos gradually morphing into higher forms
of life from lower forms. This has been exposed as a wishful hoax.
fraudulent figures were first drawn in the late nineteenth century by an
admirer of Darwin named Ernst Haeckel. They have been used as late as 1994 in a
college textbook by Bruce Alberts, the
president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Those who firmly believe that evolution is a fact will offer explanations
to each of these objections but one must ask how convincing are such
explanations? Just because an explanation is offered does not mean the
objection is answered.
12. There are human experiences
that are difficult to explain with an evolutionary model.
a. Longings of the human soul – The human
hunger for something outside nature. The joy of beauty and the pain of
injustice are rooted in an idealism that has its roots in God.
instincts – The fact that people argue rather than fight suggests
that they believe that there are standards that govern our common experience.
C.S Lewis describes this as the TAO (an inner moral code that transcends time
and cultural boundaries). When someone claims that God could not exist because
of the injustice in the world we must ask, “How can you identify injustice
without some kind or transcendent moral code which suggests a moral law giver.”
Richard Dawkins writes “In a universe of
blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get
hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won’t find any rhyme or
reason in it nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose, no
evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA
neither knows nor cares, DNA just is and we dance to its music.” It is
significant that Dawkins has somewhere aquired a sense of good (lucky) and evil
(hurt) in his world of “blind pitiless indifference.” One can’t but wonder at the
image of God, even in a devout atheist.
There is a universal fear of the “other” beyond our world.
13. There are significant gaps in
the “naturalistic story” of the origin of life, as we know it.
evolution – The origin of life (DNA) from non-life represents a huge
gap for which there is no easy natural explanation.
The eucaryotic cell –
The kind of cell, with a nucleus and various other complicated features such as
mitochodria, which are not present in bacteria, represents an even more
momentous difficulty and statistically improbable step says Mark Ridley in
The origin of consciousness is another gap for which there is no easy natural
Fossil record –
Gaps is the fossil record (noted above) are troubling to Darwin’s theory.
is curious to many as to why these and all and any other challenges to the
theory of evolution are so dogmatically and confidently ignored, belittled, or
discredited by so many who claim to have no vested interest but the truth.
point of these challenges is not to disprove evolution as a possible principle
to explain the origin of life forms as we see them today. It is rather to
challenge the seemingly evangelistic, triumphalistic, and closed mindedness
with which evolution is presented to the general public by those who claim to
be objective and open minded seekers of truth.
critics of evolutionary theory have sometimes been selective in what evidence
they choose to attack it is the arrogant disrespect (by some evolutionists) of
any serious critique of evolution that seems most out of place.
who resort to ridicule are often covering up something. In this case they are
hoping to prevent reasoned examination of a vulnerable assumption. The
assumption is that science knows of a mechanism for evolution that can produce
eyes, brains, and even plant cells without the application of massive amounts
of preexisting intelligence.” Phillip E Johnson
case for intelLigent design
Some scientists have
suggested a model they call “intelligent design” (ID). It suggests that ID
offers a better explanation of the scientific evidence than the naturalistic
While many within the
scientific community reject ID as a cleverly disguised religious theory, the
supporters insist that its support comes from the hard data and reason, not
Scripture. It should not be surprising that many Christians find the theory
attractive in that it lends scientific support to the Biblical creation
It is important to note
that the question of origins falls on the borderline between science and
philosophy. It is a forensic science and as such cannot be tested in a lab or
replicated in the present. The distinction between “origin science” and
“operational science” is helpful (see A6 above).
4. “Let us go
directly to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. Microbiology and biochemistry have brought
revolutionary insights here… They have
brought us to the awareness that an organism and a machine have many points in
common… Their functioning presupposes a
precisely thought-through and therefore reasonable design… (sounds like intelligent design to me)
. . . It is the affair of the natural sciences to
explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new
branches shoot out from it. This is not
a matter for faith. But we must have the
audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the
products of chance and error… (They)
point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so
more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude
and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the
creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive
of. Human beings are not a mistake but
something willed.” Pope Benidict XVI, In the
Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of
the Story of Creation and the Fall, 1986
A. Basic rational for Intelligent Design.
is not good science to limit all causes to a philosophy of materialism and
Science is in search of
causes. There are only two types of causes, intelligent and natural.
Both types should be
open to consideration by honest enquirers.
Some scientists suggest
that there is an “anthropic principle” built into nature that predestins the
“natural” process to select for conditions supporting life. Critics ask, “How
is this not a form of ID, it certainly is not a “natural law.”
complexity of Biochemical systems suggests ID.
This is sometimes
called the “mouse trap” phenomena (the mouse trap like the eye has no
meaningful function unless and until all parts work together).
Darwin wrote, “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 break down.” We now know that there are many organs, systems, and
processes in life that fit that description – the cell, the eye, etc.
are no known natural laws that create specified complexity (information) in
mathematic improbability of life originating by random chance is widely
acknowledged even by those who hold an evolutionary view. The most popular
explanation among scientists today is that life arose by natural forces within
the constituents of matter itself. The idea is that every time the right
preconditions exist, life will arise automatically and inevitably. The
difficulty however is that all attempts to demonstrate this “anthropic
principle” experimentally have illustrated just the opposite. Dean Kenyon, the
author of Biochemical Predestination
(one of the most widely used graduate textbooks supporting the anthropic
principle explanation) has become a proponent of ID because of his own
largely eliminates the problems created for the evolutionary model by the data.
a. Genetic limits seem to be built into each
life form. This fits the ID model.
b. Cyclical change rather than linier
progressive change within life forms seems to be the pattern of nature. This
fits the ID model.
c. Molecular isolation (living things share
common DNA) can just as easily suggest a common designer or maker than a common
gaps in the fossil record are consistent with ID.
e. The absence of any transitional forms within
the diversity of life at the present time fits ID.
B. Objections to Intelligent Design.
is not science. If this is true, then neither is Darwinism in that
Darwinism like ID is trying to discover what happened in the past. Operation
Science and Origin Science deal with different challenges that require special
considerations. For example testability is impossible in forensic (Origin)
commits the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy. ID claims to have positive evidence
for its model. It is not just offering an explanation for unexplained
phenomena. Good science should be open to both natural and intelligent causes.
ID is falsifiable, In other words, ID could be disproven if natural laws were
someday discovered to create specified complexity. The same cannot be said of
Darwinism. Darwinism is more prone to commit the ?-of-the-gaps fallacy in that
it often is forced to default to an unknown power of some sort.
is religiously motivated. Motivation is not the issue in good
science, the quality of the evidence is the issue. Few would argue that
everyone including Darwinists, may have a bias motivation. Good science demands
objectivity, which we hope can be respected in spite of personal preferences
and bias on both sides.
is false because the design is not perfect. The fact that we can
claim to know what is sub-optimal design implies that we can know optimal
design. How can we be so sure that we know the function of all parts of life’s
forms. All design requires trade-offs.
kills the incentive to explore natural explanations for phenomena.
This is a criticism that does not find support in actual practice only in
How should Christians
respond to the challenge of naturalistic evolution as a model for origins?
1. First, get an educated exposure to the
issue. A lot of Christians lose credibility because they make dogmatic
statements that come from uninformed positions. Non scientists should be very
careful how they talk about technical scientific data.
2. There is so much that we do not know about
the HOW of origins both from the Bible and from science that we should keep an
open mind in looking for answers. Be tentative in your assertions about how God created the cosmos. Admit that
there is much that we do not know. Past blunders by well meaning Christians
making arrogant claims (i.e. the earth is the center of the universe) should
not be forgotten.
Recognize that in the minds of some people the evolutionary model is so
well established, that to question it is
unthinkable. If you want to challenge the model do so respectfully, humbly, and
is possible that God could use a modified evolutionary model in His creative
work. Don’t dismiss theistic evolutionists as compromises of science and
indicated above, I favor E.J. Carnell’s view of “threshold evolution.”
Questions that you should be able to answer.
1. Specific facts you should know.
a. What are
the strongest arguments for macroevolution?
b. What are
the strongest arguments against macroevolution?
c. What is
the distinction between micro, macro, and chemical evolution?
2. Issues that you should be able to discuss.
a. How has
evolutionary theory influenced other areas of knowledge and ethics?
b. Is it
possible to interpret Genesis so as to be in harmony with macro-evolutionary
c. Why is
the subject of evolution so controversial and emotional?
“creation science” is paradox?
3. Questions you should wrestle with.
a. How should the subject of
the origin of life be handled in public education?
b. How can Christians talk
about the subject of evolution and creation in constructive ways?
Fr. Tadros Malaty