The True Gospel

and the

Ezekiel Warning

CHAPTER 6 - THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND THE CREATION OF SPECIES

Introduction

The dominant culture in the United States has become materialistic.  This materialism is based on a combination of atheism, agnosticism, and indifference to religion.  A large segment of our population believes there is no God or does not know if God exists or not.

This nation was founded by people who believed in God.  Our Declaration of Independence, the foundational document for the existence of our nation, states that it is self-evident that all men are created by a Creator.  Many people came to this land for the purpose of finding freedom to practice their religion, and the founding fathers wrote a constitution that guarantees that freedom.  As the Supreme Court and other courts have interpreted the Constitution, all levels of government should be neutral in regards to religion, neither prohibiting or endorsing religion in general or any religion in particular.

But there is an element in our society that is pushing a culture of materialism in entertainment, news reporting, education, and government, and they have succeeded in making atheistic materialism the dominant point of view in all these realms.  Those who promote this culture base their worldview on the theory of evolution and their own belief that God does not exist.  They have a sense of morality, but it is a morality without God and a morality they invent based on their own human ideas and reasoning apart from God and the Bible.

They have succeeded to the point that the religious freedom that our founding fathers tried to guarantee has been weakened, and in the realm of public education, destroyed.  Government is no longer neutral in regards to God and religion.  Government is now anti-God and anti-religion.  And we as a people have allowed this to happen.

Government supported grammar schools, high schools, and colleges and universities now teach as fact the belief of atheists that all species came into existence through common descent, random mutation, and selection through natural forces only with no guidance, design, or intervention from a creator God whatsoever.  This belief is called the theory of evolution and it is taught as established fact, as known truth, even though evolutionists, when pinned down, will admit that evolution cannot be proved logically.

This materialistic worldview and culture is anti-God and anti-Bible.  It denies the existence and authority of the God who created the earth and mankind and inspired the Bible.

How God Views Our Materialistic Society

God calls atheists "fools."

Psalm 14:1:  "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.  They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (KJV).

Psalm 53:1-3:  "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.  Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.  God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (KJV).

Why does God call them fools?  Because creation is the proof of God's existence.

Speaking of God's wrath against the unrighteousness that mankind has practiced, Paul wrote:  "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 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 fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:18-32, KJV).

Paul wrote that the invisible things of God and His eternal power can be clearly seen by the things that are made - the creation.

Creation is the evidence of God's existence.  The proof is the same whether a man knows a lot or a little about science.  The people in Paul's day and prior knew little about science, but they could see the wonders of God's creation in the heavens, the earth, and in all life.  People today know much more about science, but science teaches us today about fundamental laws that show design in the universe that proves there must be a Designer who made design choices.  Science has revealed a universe far larger and more complex than people in Paul's day could have imagined.

As I pointed out in chapter one, the universe with its laws shows that design choices have been made.  There are a limited number of fundamental forces, and each force has its own characteristics in terms of attraction or repulsion, strength, and how quickly the force diminishes over distance.  These forces make possible the creation we see today, including life.  Had these forces been slightly different, our physical life could not exist.  There is no fundamental logical reason why these forces have to exist the way they are.  God as master designer chose these forces and their characteristics.  Likewise, these forces and the matter and energy that exist operate in space and time, each with its dimensions and characteristics.  Everyone is aware that ordinary space is three-dimensional.  But there is no logical reason why space has to be three-dimensional.  A universe with four space dimensions or two would be just as logical and self-consistent as the three-dimensional space we live in, and mathematicians and physicists can calculate the characteristics of such space.  But God chose three dimensions of space, not two or four.

There are fundamental constants in the universe, such as the speed of light.  There are a limited number of fundamental particles, each with its characteristics.

All these laws and characteristics of the physical universe we live in show that design choices have been made by a master designer.

We also have the evidence of the consciousness of our minds, which science does not even define much less explain.  Science can say nothing about it because it does not relate to any physical processes that science is able to deal with.  Some scientists and science writers dance around the issue, calling intelligence or mental focus "consciousness," but that is not what it is.  They may analyze the physical processes in the brain, but they know that no combination of physical matter and energy can account for the subjective experience that is a characteristic of the human mind.

But as God inspired Paul to write, men do not like to retain God in their knowledge.  For many, it is easier to conclude that there is no God than to face the reality that there is a God who has authority over how every person lives his life and that we will all have to face God's judgment for what we do. 

The evidence of God's existence is obvious to anyone who is willing to look at creation with an unbiased mind.  That is why God says, they are without excuse.

And while evolution is being accepted and promoted in education and the media, our society is also moving farther and farther away from the moral standards set by the God of all creation.  Most people find time for movies, television, games, sports, and all types of pleasure, recreation, and entertainment, but few people find time for seeking God through Bible study, personal prayer, and fasting, except when they are in trouble.

And trouble is coming, as the next chapter will show.

No Contradiction between Physical Evidence and the Bible

As I pointed out in chapter one, the Bible does not say that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.  The creation account in Genesis is literal, not figurative.  The six days of creation were literal 24-hour days, not periods of time that could have lasted millions of years.  But the earth existed BEFORE the six days of creation!

Look at Genesis again!  The earth was created in verse 1.  It existed and is described in verse 2, BEFORE the six days that are described in the verses that follow.

The language of Genesis allows an undefined period of time between the original creation of the earth and the first of the six days when God renewed the surface of the earth.  Genesis says nothing about this period of time, whether it was long or short, whether the earth was in darkness and covered with water for most of this time or just at the end of this period, whether there was life on the earth BEFORE the earth was engulfed in darkness and water, etc.  But as I pointed out in chapter one, there are indications elsewhere in the Bible that suggest that the earth was NOT created in darkness and covered in water, originally.  This was a condition that came after the original creation of the earth.  It could well have come as a result of a catastrophe that engulfed the earth as a result of the rebellion and sin of Lucifer and his angels, just as the flood in Noah's day came as a result of the sins of mankind (Genesis 6:5-8).

Life could have existed before that catastrophe, as far as Genesis is concerned, and this period could have lasted millions of years.  Then after the surface of the earth was destroyed, God in six days renewed the surface of the earth.  He re-created the life forms that had previously existed, using the same genetic code those life forms had previously.  He separated land areas from oceans, cleaned up the atmosphere, and made the heavenly bodies clearly visible from the surface of the earth to act as seasonal signs and to provide light on the earth.

Science claims to have found evidence that life forms existed in the earth for millions of years, and there is no contradiction between that and the Bible, even with a literal understanding of the Bible.

Can Science Prove Evolution?

How did life come about?  The life forms that exist today are descended from the life forms God made in six days approximately 6,000 years ago, as described in Genesis.  But where did the design of those life forms come from originally?

Scientists see a similarity between the fossils that were laid in the earth many thousands of years ago and species that exist today.  There is apparently no sudden change between species that existed tens of thousands of years ago or even millions of years ago and species that exist today.  This seems to indicate that when God renewed the surface of the earth in six days and made the ancestors of today's species, He did not create new life forms.  He re-created, or restored, the same life forms that had existed at the time the surface of the earth was destroyed and engulfed in water and darkness.  God restored the surface of the earth to the condition it was in before the catastrophe struck.

The characteristics of each species are determined by the genetic code for that species.  To restore the species that existed, God could simply have re-created the life forms with the same genetic code that existed before.

But how did that code come into existence in the first place?  What is the real origin of species?

Evolutionists vehemently claim that all species came into existence through natural forces only.  The theory of evolution claims that all species came into existence through descent from a common ancestor and through random mutation and natural selection.  Their theory excludes the possibility that God designed the species or guided their development.  The mutation that evolution uses to explain genetic change is always natural mutation, never changes planned, designed, and made by God for an intelligent purpose.  The selection of the fittest for survival is always natural selection, never selection by God or any supernatural agent.

Some people believe in a kind of "theistic evolution."  They believe in a kind of evolution and they also believe in God.  Many of these people may believe that there was evolution, but God may have helped the process along, guiding it here and there.

But that is emphatically NOT the evolution that is taught in the public schools.  Public school students are taught that all species came into existence through natural forces only.  The idea that God created life or even guided its development is excluded from consideration.

Science teaches evolution as fact.  They teach it as something that is known by science to be true.  They do not teach it as a possibility.  Public school students are taught that evolution, that is, the development of species through natural causes ONLY, definitely is how all species came into existence.

But can science prove that evolution is true?  And if it cannot prove that it is true, what right does it have to teach it as truth, as fact, to students in government supported schools?

The origin of life and the species of life is intimately involved in people's religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  Creation is one of the proofs of God's existence.  Government is supposed to be neutral in regards to religion.  The founding fathers of this nation sought to establish freedom in this country for people to practice their religious faith, including teaching their faith to their children, without government interference.

Can evolution be proved by science?

I will show that it cannot.

Essential to the theory of evolution as taught in the public schools is the principle that species of life came into existence through natural forces only.  But that cannot be proven.  No scientist can prove that God has not intervened supernaturally to create the species or to guide their development.  Even if a scientist could show that all species had a common ancestor, and that the species branched out over millions of years, each species slightly different than its ancestors, science cannot prove that God did not intervene and guide the process.  And if God intervened, then the species did not come into existence through natural forces only.  God's creative intervention could explain any difficulties science may have in explaining how the species came about, but in its investigations, science refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a Creator God who intervenes in physical processes.

The method science uses to do research in science is the scientific method.  The scientific method is the only method of investigation that is allowed in scientific work.  And the scientific method, as practiced by science, does not allow consideration of supernatural causes for physical evidence.  Therefore, science cannot consider even the possibility that God created or guided the development of species.  It cannot try to prove or disprove God's intervention, nor can it examine it as a possibility, not even long enough to rule it out.

Science only investigates natural processes.  In fact, a definition of science is the observation, description, investigation, and explanation of NATURAL processes.

You cannot prove something by only looking at one side and ignoring any alternative possibilities.  Science never looks at the possibility that God may intervene in physical processes.  Science never considers that as a possibility.  It is ruled out arbitrarily without rational examination.  Science is therefore biased and its conclusions are untrustworthy.

You cannot prove something by looking at one side.  If you are after truth, you have to be unbiased in your examination.  You have to consider both sides.  But science has placed a limitation on itself, and because of this self-imposed limitation, it cannot consider both sides, which would be necessary for proof.

If both sides of an argument are reasonable and neither can be disproved, then both should be considered possible.

If science cannot prove evolution, why does it insist it is true?

For atheists and hard-core evolutionists, evolution is a faith.  It is not a religious faith.  It is an anti-religious faith.  It is a chosen belief system not subject to logical proof based on physical evidence.  It is a worldview based on subjective personal choice, not physical evidence.  Evolutionists believe their theory because they want to and because they choose to.  Most of them do not want to believe there is a God who has the authority to tell them how to live their lives and to whom they will be accountable in judgment.

Evolution is the atheist's explanation for creation without a Creator.  It is an anti-God faith that an atheist may hold to just as zealously and even as militantly as any religious fanatic might hold to his faith.

Here is a test that can show that the theory of evolution is a kind of faith for those who believe it.  The next time a scientist, advocate of evolution, biology teacher, or college professor challenges you on evolution and wants to know why you don't believe it, try asking, "Can you prove evolution according to the rules of formal logic?"  Many colleges offer courses in formal logic.  Formal logic is logic based on deductive reasoning.  This is the same kind of reasoning used to produce proofs in geometry.  It is illustrated by the example, "All dogs bark.  Sandy is a dog.  Therefore, Sandy barks."  Used properly it can be very accurate, but it has a limitation.  It can only reason from assumed premises.  In the above example, it is assumed that all dogs bark.  Then, based on this assumption, if Sandy is a dog, you can prove that Sandy barks.  But if the premise is wrong, your conclusion can be wrong.

The false premise in evolution that the scientific community assumes is that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes.

People often think of science as a field of knowledge, a category of information, a subject matter.  This is often how the term "science" is used.  Courses in school for example are divided into categories such as science, mathematics, history, etc., and books in libraries and bookstores are grouped in similar ways.  But science is more than a category or field of knowledge.  It is a way of looking at the world and a way of trying to discover knowledge. 

Science is a culture, a community, a process for trying to discover new knowledge, and a way of thinking.  The foundation of this community and way of thinking is the scientific method.  The scientific method is the only method for investigating questions of science that the scientific community will accept.  It is the basis for discussion of scientific issues.  Reasoning outside of the scientific method is not allowed in a scientist's work.  And a basic premise of the scientific method as practiced by the scientific community is that no supernatural explanation for any physical evidence is even to be considered.  In other words, the possibility that there is a God who might intervene in any physical process is excluded in scientific thinking.  The scientific method therefore rules out even considering the possibility that God created life on the earth, even before any physical evidence is examined.  And the scientific method is the only method of investigation a scientist may use in his work.

Science requires that scientific theories be empirically testable and be based on multiple observation, often in the form of controlled, repeatable experiments.  This alone excludes consideration of supernatural causes for physical evidence.  The intervention of God is not subject to repeatable experiment.  God chooses when and how to intervene in physical processes, and such choices are not predictable in their details.

The scientific method works fine in the laboratory and in investigating everyday processes because God allows the universe to follow the natural laws He has created and does not ordinarily interfere with natural law.  He does not make His presence known by constantly intervening in the physical operation of the universe.  God wants man to be able to work with matter and energy and to be able to control his environment to a degree, and physical processes need to be predictable for men to understand and work with them.  Also, it is not God's will to reveal Himself to mankind at this time in such a way that men cannot deny His existence.  At this time, God is giving mankind a free choice about this, and so He stays in the background right now.  But that does not mean that God did not create the universe, or life itself.  This assumption, that God never intervenes in physical processes, does not work well in explaining how things came into existence in the first place, or the past history of how everything came to be the way it is.  When scientists use the scientific method in the laboratory, they are using it properly, but when they try to use it to explain the origins of life, they are using for a purpose to which it is ill suited, and it fails miserably.

According to the scientific method, there is no God who intervenes in physical processes, and the scientific method is the only way of thinking most scientists and educators will acknowledge as a way of investigating the origin of species.  So their thinking about evolution is distorted and biased from the beginning.

This is why the scientific community, with the cultural bias it presently has, cannot accept or even objectively consider creation by God as an explanation for life on earth. 

Some opponents of evolution use the term "intelligent design" to refer to the concept that life shows design by an intelligent being.  This is sometimes promoted as a scientific theory without stating who the intelligent designer is.  But scientists know that the term "intelligent design" usually refers to design and creation by an intelligent God.  And in the minds of most scientists, even to consider such a possibility as an explanation for physical evidence would be a violation of the scientific method.

Therefore, scientists within the scope of their scientific work and teaching CANNOT accept creation by God or intelligent design.  They have no choice but to try to fit all physical evidence into the evolutionary framework if they are to work within the limits of the scientific method.  They are required to be biased against creation even before they look at the evidence, and they have no choice but to explain the evidence in evolutionary terms.  If a scientist thought he found evidence of creation, he could not even succeed in publishing it in mainstream scientific journals.  Although a minority of scientists may personally believe in a creator God who controls and intervenes in the universe, those scientists must keep those personal views out of their scientific work and teaching.  The scientific community as a whole rejects the idea of a creator God.  And this rejection is based on the community's faith in the scientific method, not on logical proof.

In science, the scientific method is the lens through which all physical evidence is evaluated.  The scientific method is the basis for all reasoning that scientists are expected to employ in their work as scientists.  Reasoning outside of the scientific method is not allowed.  This approach, when applied to the origin of things, denies even the possibility of a creator God before any evidence is even examined.  One who adopts this method in exploring the origins of things has no choice but to search only for physical explanations for any evidence he finds.  The scientific community is made up of hundreds of thousands of scientists who spend their whole lives evaluating physical evidence and proposing explanations from this point of view.  Millions of man-years have been expended to explain fossils, radio carbon dating, DNA, etc. from an evolutionary point of view.

Scientists and science teachers may challenge those who believe in creation to explain some point of physical evidence, such as radiocarbon measurements, fossils, or evidence regarding the rate of genetic mutations, and say to a believer in creation, perhaps a young student, "How can you explain this apart from evolution?"  Then the student or believer in creation is expected to come up with an alternative explanation in the next couple of seconds or the teacher may say, "See, there is no explanation apart from evolution, therefore this proves that evolution is true."  But that is not logical.  If a student does not think of an alternative explanation, that is not proof that there is no explanation.  To be fair, not only should the student have an equal number of years to explain the evidence according to intelligent design, the same number of years scientists have had to explain it according to the theory of evolution, but the student would need access to the original physical evidence itself as well as the equipment and training needed to examine the evidence, not just published reports of the evidence after it has been selected and interpreted by those who accept and practice the evolutionary faith.

The point is, the whole field of study of the physical evidence in life and in the earth is dominated by a community of scientists who are biased right from the beginning of their education and training against belief in a creator God who can intervene in natural processes, and therefore their conclusions and explanations are untrustworthy.  To use an analogy, if this were a court case, if a prospective jury member had such a degree of bias one way or another, he could rightly be dismissed from being on the jury. 

Scientists and educators cannot prove evolution according to formal logic without setting as a premise that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes, and this premise is false.  Nevertheless, they accept this premise without proof.  For them, though they will not call it a faith, it is a faith and it is like a religion to them.

And in the educational system and scientific community, the majority who practice this faith are in a position of power and influence that enables them to put enormous pressure to conform upon those who do not want to accept this faith.

There is another problem with evolution, and that is the way it is taught in the schools.  Though it is called a theory, it is not taught just as a possibility of how life and all the species might have come into existence.  It is taught as fact, as the way life actually came to be.  One of the principles that the scientific community claims to follow is that for a theory to qualify as scientific, it should be considered provisional or tentative, admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty.  Yet that is not how evolution is taught.  Evolution is presented in the classroom and textbooks as a certainty.  No room is allowed for doubt about whether evolution actually occurred or not.  Yet evolution is unproved and unprovable.  What is happening is that the scientific and educational communities are trying to impose their faith in evolution upon their students.  And in many cases they are succeeding.

Evolution cannot be proved by science.  The scientific method itself rules out such proof.

Evolutionists point to physical evidence to try to show that evolution is possible, and they believe that evolution is actually the process by which all the species came into existence.  But trying to prove that evolution as a process is possible and may have occurred, and trying to prove that evolution actually happened, are two different things.  A scientist could show that evolution is possible and may have occurred if he could demonstrate that evolution is consistent with all known evidence.  But to prove that it actually did happen he would have to go a step further.  He would have to prove that no other reasonable explanation is consistent with all the evidence.  He would have to show that evolution is the only way life could have come into existence and is the only explanation that fits the evidence.  So how could he do that?

The alternative to evolution is creation by God.  To prove that evolution must have happened a scientist would have to prove that the evidence cannot be explained by creation by God.

Evolutionists can become quite vehement in their defense of their faith in evolution, and many of them become offended or angry if you call evolution a faith and unproven.  But they are being emotional, not rational.  The only way science can know something is true is to prove it, and the only way you can prove something by the physical evidence is to show that your explanation covers all the facts (which evolution does not) and that no other explanation can explain all the facts (which science never attempts to prove).

For science to prove evolution happened, it has to show:  a) evolution can explain the evidence, and b) creation cannot explain the evidence.  It can try to prove (a) but the scientific method does not allow science to try to prove (b). 

To rule out creation or intelligent design, an evolutionist would have to show that no creationist explanation is consistent with the evidence.  If he cannot do that, then he would have to be content merely to acknowledge that evolution is one possible explanation for life, but not the only one.  But if he takes that route, he is in conflict with how evolution is actually taught in schools.  It is not taught as a possible way life may have come into existence, it is taught as the only way, the one way, the way it definitely happened. 

The best science can say, if it is honest, is that evolution is science's best explanation for how the species of life might have arisen naturally if God did not create or develop species supernaturally.  But science cannot prove that evolution actually happened.

I am not saying that I agree that evolution through natural forces only is sufficient to explain the species, but let's say for the moment that it is.  Does that mean it actually happened?  If creation by God is also sufficient to explain how life arrived at its present variety, then how can we know that life came through evolution and not intelligent design by a creator God?

If both evolution and intelligent design by God can explain the species, then either of these is possible and evolution has not been proved to be the origin of the species.  Then it is wrong to teach it as a fact or as truth.

As an illustration, if there was a crime committed, it is not sufficient to prove a suspect guilty only by showing that he could have committed the crime.  Maybe a second person also could have committed the crime.  You prove which one did it by eliminating the possibility that the other did it.  You narrow it down to one by eliminating any other possibility.  Science has never done that.  It has never eliminated the possibility that God created the species by intelligent design.

If a scientist wants to prove that evolution definitely happened by showing that no creationist explanation is consistent with the evidence, how would he go about doing that?  He has a bigger job than just showing that the physical evidence suggests an earth older than 6,000 years.  For one thing, not all creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old; some people, like myself, believe the earth is several billions or at least hundreds of millions of years old, and that life existed on the earth millions of years ago as indicated in the fossil record, but that God nevertheless designed and created life.  Even among those who think the earth is only 6,000 years old, many of these people have explanations for the physical evidence consistent with a 6,000 year old earth.  A scientist may not agree with these explanations, but can he prove them wrong logically?

How can a scientist prove that intelligent design never occurred?  How can he prove that no logical self-consistent creationist explanation for the evidence is possible?  To put it another way, how can he prove that every creationist explanation is inconsistent with the evidence?  Many or most of those who believe in creation believe in a God that can do anything, create anything out of nothing, change anything, and perform any miracle.  How could a scientist prove that such a God did not design and create life and the different species of life outside the normal workings of physical law, and do it in a way that is consistent with the physical evidence?

Since such a God is capable of creating any kind of life, at any time and in any way He chooses, there is no question of whether an all-powerful God is able to create life the way it appears in the fossil record and in life forms today.  The question becomes, why would God choose to create life the way that He did?  And that becomes a theological question, which science cannot deal with.  Not knowing God's reasons for every choice He makes does not prove that God did not create life.

How could a scientist, following the scientific method, even approach such a problem?  The scientific method does not allow for supernatural explanations of evidence.  So even if it were possible to prove that the evidence cannot be explained by creation, a scientist could not do it in the course of his work.  To do this, he would have to consider, evaluate, and then rule out supernatural explanations for the origin of life.  He would have to get involved in theology in order to try to rule out any explanation that God created life in a way consistent with the evidence.  He can try to do this as a private individual, but it can't be part of his work, his writing, his publishing, and his teaching as a scientist because the scientific method rules out consideration of supernatural explanations for evidence.

I repeat, you cannot objectively prove something by only looking at one side of an issue.  The question is, did God create life or did life evolve through natural processes?  If you are really after truth, you have to look at both sides of a question objectively and without bias.  But scientists, in their work as scientists, cannot do that with evolution and creation.  The scientific method forbids it, as does peer pressure of the scientific community.  The scientific method as it is applied forbids the consideration of supernatural explanations for evidence.  So the scientific method cannot examine both sides of the issue, which is necessary for proof.

So the scientific method itself prevents science from trying to prove evolution rationally.  That is why evolution cannot be proved.

Some evolutionists will say that it is a lack of evidence of the supernatural that causes science to ignore the possibility that God intervened to develop the species.  But the greatest evidence of God's existence, power, and intervention in physical processes is the universe itself.  The design and existence of this vast universe with its matter, energy, and laws is proof of God's supernatural acts, yet science rejects that evidence, which only demonstrates that the bias of science against God is real.

And if a scientist as an individual really examined both sides of the issue carefully and without bias, I believe he would conclude that the evidence is consistent only with creation and not with evolution, and he could prove for himself that evolution never occurred.  But he would have great difficulty if he tried teaching that in the course of his work, and would risk rejection by the scientific and educational communities. 

You can't know from scientific experiments and observations what God may have done in the past.  You can't use scientific experiments to prove that God did not create life.  The best a scientist can do is to try to show that evolution is possible, but he can't prove it actually happened.  And I personally do not believe that evolution is even possible.

Many people who look at this issue with an open mind are troubled by the idea that God created life because the fossil evidence appears to them to indicate that the different life forms appeared gradually on the earth over hundreds of millions of years, with the simplest life forms appearing first and the more complex life forms appearing later.  Also, there are fossils of life forms such as the dinosaurs that have become extinct.  They cannot imagine why an all-powerful creator God would choose to create the various life forms in this order and over such a long period of time, or why God would create some life forms only to allow them to become extinct later.

I do not know all the events that may have taken place on the earth before the account of the six days in Genesis.  The Bible does not give details.  I also do not know if scientists accurately know the ages of various fossils they find.  Scientists may or may not be mistaken in estimating the ages of the fossils that appear to be tens or even hundreds of millions of years old.  But suppose scientists are right about the ages of the fossils of dinosaurs and various other ancient species.  Suppose scientists are right that the fossils of simpler life forms are older than the more complex life forms.  Does that prove that evolution is the process by which all the species came to be?  Absolutely not.

Because the Bible does not tell us how and when God created different species before the earth was covered with water and God renewed the face of the earth in six days, we cannot know exactly how, when, and why God created the life forms that resulted in fossils of dinosaurs and other animals.  He may have had particular reasons for creating the simpler life forms first and the more complex life forms later, and reasons for allowing the dinosaurs and many other life forms to become extinct, reasons we cannot know since God does not reveal them in the Bible.  But because we do not know what those reasons are does not mean that God did not have reasons.  We could speculate about God's reasons, and our speculations might be right or wrong.  I will have more to say about God's reasons later.  But our lack of knowledge about reasons God might have for creating life in the order in which it appears in the fossil record does not prove that God did not create the species of life.  And if you can't prove that God did not create species, you cannot prove that evolution happened.

No scientist in his work or his private writings has ever proved that God did not create life or that God did not guide the development of species.  And if God did create or guide the development of species, then evolution is false. 

The premise contained in the scientific method as it is practiced that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes is itself unproved and unprovable.  Yet it is the basis for all scientific investigation into the origin of species.  This is why evolution is a faith.

Those who believe in evolution have made a choice to believe something they cannot prove from physical evidence, whether they realize it or not.  Evolution has never been proved.  It is a faith held by those who choose to believe it.

The theory of evolution is false.  God did create life.  The vast variety of life on earth demonstrates God's awesome creative powers and His greatness.  Mankind should give thanks to God for His creation, but rather than give God thanks for what He has done, man has found ways to deny God's works and His existence, and the theory of evolution is an idea man has invented to avoid giving God the honor and glory due to Him.  Nevertheless, God created life in all its variety, and this life is testimony to His tremendous wisdom and power.

Are the Evils of this World Evidence Against God's Existence?

Some atheists reason that there cannot be a God because of the suffering in the world.  They reason that if God exists and He is good, He would not allow the wars, the injustice, the poverty, and the general suffering of mankind that occurs on this earth.  But this is shortsighted.  God is allowing mankind to experience lessons that show that the way of man, cut off from God, leads to suffering and destruction.  God has a purpose and a plan, and this plan is revealed in the Bible, as I have shown in chapters one and two.  This physical life is temporary, and God has a plan for teaching mankind lessons, lessons that will bring benefits for all eternity, and the suffering of this life is part of that plan.  It will work for good in the end.  But the atheist is unwilling to trust in the goodness and wisdom of God and will not look to the Bible for answers with an open mind.

The suffering in this world may be the atheists' excuse for denying God's existence.  I do not think it is the real reason.  I think the idea that there is a God who has authority to tell them how to live their lives is personally distasteful to them, and denying God's existence helps them feel free of that authority.

The Bible reveals God's plan for mankind, and God helps those who are willing to believe and obey Him to understand the Bible.  Though God allows us to suffer many evils in this life, that suffering will work good in the end, to teach us lessons that will last for eternity, and to test us.  Paul writes in Romans 8:18-39 that the suffering in this life is not worthy to be compared with the glory will be revealed after this age.  God permits us to suffer just as a loving father disciplines his children for their long-term good.

The seven day week is a model of God's seven thousand year plan for mankind (2 Peter 3:8).  Just as the seventh day, the weekly Sabbath of rest from the burdens of the work week, follows the six days of labor, so a one thousand year period of peace and happiness will follow six thousand years of war and suffering.  God has allotted mankind six thousand years to be cut off from His rule and to write the lesson in human suffering that man's ways cut off from God only lead to suffering and death.  Then Christ will return to rule the earth for one thousand years and teach mankind God's law and way of life (Revelation 20:1-4), and God's rule will bring peace and happiness to the earth.  Then men can compare the history of the six thousand years of man's self-rule with the one thousand years of God's rule and see which way is best. 

God's says in His word that He is a God of love, mercy, righteousness, justice, wisdom, and power, but the atheist is not willing to believe that.  It takes faith in God's righteousness and truthfulness to believe Him and trust His plan for mankind, and the atheist is not willing to trust that God knows what He doing and has mankind's best interest at heart.

God has far more wisdom than man, and God requires that we trust Him even when we do not understand every reason for God's judgments (Isaiah 55:8-9).

There are answers to the question of why God allows suffering.  But science cannot examine that question because it limits itself to the study of natural causes only and cannot look at questions about God and His ways.

An atheist may conclude there is no God because of the suffering in this world, and that conclusion may drive his decision to believe in evolution.  But that is not science.  That reinforces my point, that within the discipline of science, one cannot prove that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes or that evolution is true.  Any reasoning a person might use about the existence of God goes outside of science, into philosophy or theology.  And since it is not part of science, it is hidden from students in the science classroom.  Students are taught that evolution occurred through natural forces only, but they are not told that the reason evolutionists are certain of this is that they think God is ridiculous or that the suffering of this world shows that God does not exist.  They are only told the conclusion, evolution, but not the real reasons behind the conclusion.

So atheists and evolutionists use science and the scientific method as a shield and a cover for the real reasons they believe in evolution.

My point is, you have to go outside the role of scientist and outside the scientific method even to begin to explore the issues involved here.  Science has never explored the issue of God's existence in light of the suffering that exists on earth.  It can't.  It doesn't want to.  It shouldn't.     

Individual scientists can study this on their own and reach their own private conclusions, but that is not part of their work and teaching as scientists.

The problem is that science teaches evolution as fact without examining the evidence that a believer in God might present for the existence and intervention of God.  Why is that wrong?  The problem is not that it doesn't examine theological issues of "why does God allow suffering?"  The problem is that science doesn't acknowledge that such an examination is necessary to refute the evidence a believer of God might present to show that God exists and intervenes in the physical universe.   

Evolutionists can't counter the arguments of those who believe in God within the bounds of science and the scientific method.  You have to step outside of science and talk about, "How can an all-powerful, all-benevolent God allow so much suffering?  Therefore, since there is no answer, there must be no God."  That may be philosophy, but it is not science. 

The problem is that the unspoken reasoning of evolutionist writers and teachers that the suffering in the world is evidence for them that there is no God is never openly discussed or put on the table for students to examine themselves.  This is important, because many of those students and their families have considered that same issue, "why does God allow suffering?" and reached a different conclusion.  They believe that suffering is not evidence against the existence of God.

There are hidden reasons, having nothing to do with science, why evolutionists believe in evolution, and these reasons are not openly acknowledged to students in the classroom so they can decide for themselves if they agree with them or not.

Teachers and advocates of evolution in public school classrooms should acknowledge that their teaching of evolution through natural causes only as definite fact is partially based on their belief that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes.  This would be a way of laying the biases of science on the table, which now are partially hidden.  It would help to clarify in the minds of the students the limitations of science and the scientific method.

Is the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools Constitutional?

The United States is considered to be a free country.  Our constitution guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.  People should be free to practice their religious beliefs.  Freedom of religion also includes freedom of parents to teach their religious beliefs to their children without government interference.

Public school science teachers teach their students that all of the species of life that exist today came into existence through mutation and selection through natural forces only.  That is what the theory of evolution is, and that is how it is taught.  Students are taught that the forces that shaped the species are natural forces only, which excludes the possibility that God designed and created the species through supernatural forces.

Most public school science teachers probably do not tell their students, "There is no God who intervenes in physical processes."  They probably do not say, "God did not guide the process of genetic change and selection," or, "God did not create life."  Most probably do not mention God unless it is in response to a question or comment from a student.  But the message is the same.  Origin of species through natural forces only automatically excludes creation by God whether the word "God" is mentioned or not

Thus, tax-supported schools, attendance at which is mandatory for those who do not attend private schools or are home schooled, are teaching many students that the religious beliefs they were raised in, that God is creator who created the species of life that exist, are false

Is this justified or is it a violation of the principle that people should be able to practice their religion free from government interference

Freedom of religion is not an absolute, nor should it be.  People are not allowed to do whatever they want in the name of religion.  Courts have recognized that freedom of religion has limits.  For example, a person cannot commit crimes against others because his religion teaches him to do so.  If science can prove its case, that life evolved through natural forces only, it should be able to teach it.

But it cannot prove its case.  In order to prove that life evolved through natural forces only, it would have to be able to disprove the possibility that God guided and influenced the origin of species.  Science has not even attempted to do that.

Why not?

Why not consider two hypothetical causes for origin of species?  One, random mutation and natural selection only produced the species.  Two, God supernaturally intervened and guided the development of the species.  Then examine the evidence in the light of both hypotheses.  If the evidence is incompatible with one of them, then that one is disproved.  Then it would be reasonable to say that the other is true.

Has science done that?  Has science considered evolution on the one hand, creation by God on the other, and examined the evidence in light of both possibilities?  And has science found that the evidence is incompatible with any process guided and supernaturally influenced by God, thus proving that God did not create or influence the development of species?

No.

And if not, what right does science have to teach in the public schools that evolution occurred if it cannot prove it?

Or in other words, what right does science have to teach in government supported and mandated schools that the religious beliefs of students and their families are wrong if it cannot prove it?

Evolutionists may reply, science doesn't "prove" things, that "proof" is the domain of logic or mathematics, not science.  But that doesn't seem to prevent science from teaching evolution as true.  And evolutionists will often say, "Evolution is a fact."  Also, it is not true that science does not deal in "proof."  Evolutionists may not use that term and may try to avoid it when it suits them, but proof is a concept and word often used by scientists in their work and writings.

The way textbooks and science teachers talk about evolution teaches that evolution, the teaching that species came from natural forces only, is definitely true, not just a possibility.  It is taught as a fact whether or not the terms "fact" or "proof" are ever used.

Evolutionists like to say that the evidence "points" to evolution, not creation.  But evidence, by itself, doesn't point to anything apart from human interpretation.  And human interpretation is influenced by the biases and the assumptions made by the person doing the interpreting.  From the perspective and the bias of evolutionists, based on their assumptions about causes, the evidence does indeed point to evolution.  But that is only because their bias and assumptions do not permit them to consider creation or any supernatural cause.  When creation is considered, the physical evidence points to design by a creator as much or more than it does to evolution.

If you point out that science cannot disprove creation by God, evolutionists sometimes reply, "You cannot disprove flying spaghetti monsters either."  Other examples I have heard of things that cannot be disproved include, flat tires are caused by invisible dinosaurs and dogs are really spies from Venus.  The point they are making is that just because something cannot be disproved does not mean it should be considered.  But in every case, they use an example that is ridiculous.  They cannot make their case in any other way.  They cannot make their point, that just because something cannot be proved does not mean it should be considered, by using an example that is reasonable, not ridiculous, but unproven, because if they did that, they would see that it should be considered.

But to hard-core evolutionists, the examples fit because whether they acknowledge it openly or not, to them the idea of God's existence is ridiculous. 

The bottom line is that creation by God is considered just as ridiculous as flying spaghetti monsters by atheists and hard-core evolutionists.  That is really the basis for teaching evolution as truth in the public schools.  Since belief in God is ridiculous, it does not need to be disproved, just ignored.  Without God, the only other possible explanation for the origin of species is evolution.

I have said several times that the theory of evolution is a faith.  What do I mean by "faith" as applied to evolution?  Ask several people to give a definition of "faith," and you will get several different answers.  Faith means different things to different people, and the meaning of the word itself can vary from one context to another.

When I say that the theory of evolution is a faith, I mean it is a chosen belief system that cannot be proved by physical evidence.  There is no physical proof that evolution occurred, yet hard-core evolutionists are zealous even to the point of militancy in their adherence and promotion of evolution.  Why?  Simply because it is their choice.  They believe what they want to believe and make a decision to believe.  It is a personal decision of the evolutionist to believe it and embrace it.  It is very subjective.

It is in this sense that I call the evolutionist's belief in evolution a "faith."  It is not a religious faith.  It is an anti-religious faith.  Evolution cannot be proved by the evidence.  Those who believe in it believe it because that is their choice.

That is their right, but they do not have the right to force their faith in evolution on their students in government supported schools.

The scientific method is the methodology science uses for discovering knowledge.  It is not the only methodology anyone can use for discovering truth, but it is the one that science has adopted.  It is an excellent way of discovering knowledge but it has limitations.  It is ideally suited for learning about everyday physical processes, such as in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.  It can be used to learn how organs of the body work, what effects medicines can have, how to treat injuries and illnesses, how to be more productive growing crops, etc.  The scientific method is how science works.

But evolution is not just a science issue.  It is also a theological and religious issue and it is a legal and constitutional issue.  Science has no right to try to impose its scientific method on those other fields.  It does that when it uses only the scientific method to investigate the origin of species, reaches a conclusion that species came from natural forces only, then teaches that conclusion as if it were fact in public schools to students who are taught just the opposite by their families and religious traditions.  Science does not have the right to use its limited methods for discovering knowledge, and then impose them on those other fields as the only path to truth.

In matters of religion, the government and its agencies should be neutral.  The entire evolution vs. creation issue is as much a domain of religious thought as it is a domain of scientific thought.  Public schools should not teach a philosophy that contradicts the belief that God designed and supernaturally intervened to create the species unless they can show evidence that disproves God's intervention.  Private schools can teach what they want.

The scientific method should be used only to address questions of how physical matter and energy work today, right now.  Experience shows that it works well when used that way.  The scientific method should not be used to determine how things originated in the past, except maybe to produce speculations, as long as those speculations are not taught as fact.

Science has put limitations on its methods of investigation and interpretation, and it should acknowledge those same limitations in its conclusions.  It's methodology restricts science to the examination of physical, repeatable processes only, and it should restrict its conclusions to repeatable processes and not be dogmatic about origins.

Science is the study of natural processes.  But that should not be construed by science as license to assume that all processes are natural processes and that the supernatural does not exist.

Students are not told that evolution is science's best theory as to how the species came into existence if there were no supernatural causes.  Students are told that evolution is how species came into existence, period.

Science students are not openly told the biases of science upon which evolution is based.  Science courses do not start with a statement on the first day of class, "What you are about to be taught is based on the premise that belief in God and his creative intervention in life is ridiculous."  They are not told, "Science's teaching about evolution is based on the premise that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes, and if that premise is false, science's teaching about evolution may be false."

Yet that is exactly the case, whether evolutionists are willing to admit it openly or not.

This universe and the natural laws that science has discovered are abundant evidence that a Creator God exists and that He has not only intervened in physical processes but has created those very physical processes and can intervene whenever He chooses.  It is the personal bias of atheists that prevents them from seeing that.  In the mind of an atheist, the idea of God is ridiculous, but somehow he is not able to see that the idea that there is no God who created the universe is itself ridiculous.  That the universe exists is evident.  That God created it is the only reasonable explanation.

Evolution is the atheist's attempt to explain creation without a creator.  Evolution does not attempt to explain the universe.  It limits itself to trying to explain how the vast variety of life came into existence without a creator God.  It is a faith, and the evolutionists have managed to enlist the power of government to pressure others into accepting their faith.

They have succeeded in making evolution the dominant culture, and I believe they have succeeded in this because of the apathy of those who believe in God and have allowed this to occur.

Not everyone who says he believes in evolution is an atheist.  Some people who are deeply religious believe in some version of evolution.  Often (not always), a person who says he believes in God and evolution will say that God used evolution to create the species and may have guided the process, intervening here and there to make sure that the species came into existence.  Evolution believed by those who also believe in God has been termed "theistic evolution."  Some believe that God exists and created the universe with its laws and used evolution to create the species, not by directly intervening in physical processes, but by creating the matter and laws that allowed evolution to happen naturally without His intervention.  Others believe that God intervened and guided an evolutionary process.

But theistic evolution is not the version of evolution taught in public schools.  Atheistic evolution is what is taught in the public schools. 

One may argue that public schools do not teach that God does not exist and therefore are not teaching against anyone's religious beliefs.  But religious beliefs include more than just the existence of God.  People's religious beliefs include their beliefs about how and when God created life.  They include beliefs regarding the Bible.  Public schools teach directly against the religious beliefs of many people who believe that God directly intervened to create or guide the development of life.  And public schools do this without objective proof that those beliefs are wrong.

Why Would God Develop Species Gradually?

In chapter one I explained why Genesis does not say that the earth is 6,000 years old, even when you take the Genesis account of the six days of creation literally.  The earth already existed before the six days of creation began.  Life could have existed for millions of years before a catastrophe destroyed the surface of the earth and knocked the heavenly bodies out of their positions in relation to the earth or obscured them with dust and the earth came to be covered in water and in darkness.  Then in six days God renewed the surface of the earth, restoring it to the condition it was in before the catastrophe that destroyed it, and restoring the life forms that had previously existed.

Scientists say that fossil evidence indicates that it took millions of years for species to be developed, and they say that genetic evidence points to an inter-relatedness of species.  They believe that all species had a common ancestor, and that new species branched off from existing species and species changed over millions of years.

The Bible does not say how God created life BEFORE the six days of creation.  Could God have developed the species of life through descent from a common ancestor and the branching off and modification of species over millions of years prior to the condition described in Genesis 1:2?

The Bible does not say how God created the species of life or over what time span, but there is nothing in the Bible that rules that out.

So instead of random mutation and natural selection, God could have directly and intelligently made genetic modifications to allow one species to branch from another.   He could have intervened supernaturally to make small genetic changes when needed to produce new species gradually over time.  And in cases where the fossil record shows species appearing abruptly with no transitional forms, God could have made all the genetic changes necessary, all at once, to design and make a new species out of an older, similar species.

But why would God do that?  God has all power.  Why would God not simply create whatever species He wanted all at once?

I think many people are troubled by that question.  They believe in God, perhaps, and they see evidence that science presents suggesting that species have arisen and changed over millions of years.  They know God could create species gradually, but they cannot think of any reason why God would want to develop the vast variety of species gradually instead of all at once.  God could have created the species gradually, from a common ancestor, by guiding genetic modifications from one generation to the next, but why?

Asking the question, why would God create develop species gradually, does not prove that He did not.  Nevertheless, it is a good question to ask.

It probably is not possible to know definitely, even if we can find possible reasons why God may have done it.  God does not say in the Bible that He did develop species gradually before the six days of creation and before a catastrophe destroyed the surface of the earth, much less WHY He may have done that.  There is no Bible evidence for biological life before the six days of creation.  The Bible account only ALLOWS for it.  The only evidence of life on earth before the six days is physical, such as fossils of dinosaurs.  And fossils do not tell us why God may have done this or that.  Any reasons I might suggest therefore are speculative.

Ultimately, we can only know God's reasons for what He does as He tells us His reasons, and where the Bible is silent, we cannot know for certain.  God may have five reasons for doing a certain thing, or ten reasons, and with our limited minds and knowledge, we may not even be able to guess what many of them are.

Nevertheless, knowing at least a possible reason may help those who have difficulty believing God might have developed species gradually because they cannot think of any possible reason for God, who is infinite in power, to create species gradually rather than all at once.

I have previously shown that before the creation of man during the six days described in Genesis, angels existed (Job 38:4-7).  Lucifer was a great angel, and God did not create him evil.  Originally, Lucifer was not evil.  But God gave him free moral agency and the power to choose between good and evil.  He was perfect in his ways until sin was found in him (Ezekiel 28:14-15).  Apparently, before he sinned, God placed Lucifer and one-third of the angels on this earth.  Lucifer was in a position of leadership over those angels.  His job was to supervise those angels under God's overall rulership.

Lucifer and the angels under his authority sinned and rebelled against God.  His name was changed to Satan and his angels became demons (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:12-17, Revelation 12:3-4, 7-9).

But before he sinned, he was perfect in his ways (Ezekiel 28:15).  God had placed him and the angels under his authority on the earth for a purpose.  The Bible does not directly reveal what that purpose was.

But God must have given them some job and activity to do.  Angels have great powers and minds, probably much greater than man's.  God did not put them on the earth to be idle.  God intended that they use their abilities in some accomplishment and challenge to match their great abilities, not existing in a state of boredom with nothing to do.  And they must have started on the right track with whatever job God gave them to do.  Lucifer was perfect in his ways, living righteously for a time, before eventually turning to sin.  Even after that, it may have taken a long time for him to lead his angels into sin also.

Might God have used the angels and given them a job relating to physical life on the earth?

After God renewed the face of the earth in six days and created Adam, God gave Adam rule and authority over all plant and animal life on the earth (Genesis 1:26-28).  He then placed Adam in the garden God had planted to "dress it and keep it," or in other words, to manage and control the garden with its plant and animal life (Genesis 2:15).

Could God have given Lucifer and the angels a similar kind of job, to manage the ecology of the species of the earth?

Why not?

And while God is infinite in wisdom and power, angels are not.  They may be more brilliant and more powerful than man, but they are still created beings and they are limited.

God may have given Lucifer and the angels a role to play it managing the ecology of life on the earth, and because of their limitations, not God's, God may have developed species and the entire complex ecological system gradually so they could learn lessons and skills with a simpler ecology before managing a more complex one.  God could have increased the variety and complexity of the species at a pace that the angels, charged with managing the ecology, could learn how to handle.

God himself is all wise and all powerful.  Nothing is impossible for Him.  His powers are infinite.  But not so the angels.  Though their powers are greater than man's, they are finite.  Their powers are less than God's.  They have to learn through experience and it takes them time to do what they do, just as with man.

That may be one reason.

I also do not rule out the possibility that God may have used the angels to help develop species, just as man is able to develop and change varieties and breeds of animals and plants today through selective breeding or through genetic engineering.

Why would God give the angels a role to play?  Why would God not do everything Himself, instantly and perfectly?

Actually, whatever work God wanted the angels to do, God could do it Himself easier and more quickly, but God did not put angels on earth to be idle.  He wanted them to have work and activity that would match their abilities, keep them challenged, provide intellectual and emotional fulfillment for them, and provide the proving ground to test Lucifer and his angels to see if they would remain loyal, to see if they would obey God and work together harmoniously.  This would be a test of their character and at the same time give them the opportunity to participate in one of God's great creative projects.

The principle is the same in the Church.  God accomplishes His will in the Church through imperfect instruments, human beings, yet it is God who supervises and leads His Church.  God has given the Church ministers to help teach.  God used imperfect prophets and apostles to accomplish His will in biblical times and to put pen to parchment to record the words of the Bible.

Anything a man or angel can do, God can do it directly more perfectly and more quickly.  Yet God wants to share opportunities for service and accomplishment in having a part to play in God's creative works.  So God uses men and angels as servants, not because He needs them, but for our good to share with us the opportunity for service and accomplishment.

Giving Lucifer and the angels a role to play in managing a growing and expanding ecology would also be a perfect testing ground to test their character and see if they would remain loyal and obedient to God and if they would work harmoniously as a team.  And it could take time, even millions of years, to test their character this way.

But at some point in time, Lucifer sinned, became Satan the adversary, and began to sway the angels under his influence to join him in rebelling against God.  It may have taken Lucifer a long time to persuade many of the angels under his leadership to join him in rebelling against God.  And God may have allowed the angels time to each make his decision.

But at some point, after hundreds of millions of years, and after life forms were developed identical to those that exist today, destruction came to the surface of the earth, either through an act of Lucifer and the angels or as a punishment from God for the sins of Lucifer and the angels, just as God destroyed the surface of the earth in the days of Noah for the sins and wickedness of mankind.  This destruction was so vast that even the heavenly bodies could have been affected and the atmosphere so filled with dust that no light could reach the earth's surface.

Then, in six days God renewed the face of the earth, restored the species that had existed at the time of the destruction (with the exact same genetic code), and made man.

This scenario, though different from what is taught in most churches, is entirely consistent with a literal reading the Bible and with physical and scientific evidence.

When the surface of the earth was destroyed and became "without form, and void," covered with water and in darkness as described in Genesis 1:2, all plant and animal life in existence at that time died.  But though they died, a great many species of plants and animals had been DESIGNED AND TESTED.  The genetic code had been developed.  There had been a working ecology that was tested and was successful.

When God recreated plant and animal life in the six days of creation, did He design everything from scratch?  Did He re-invent the wheel so to speak?  A great deal of work had been accomplished in designing and testing the genetic blueprints for a great variety of species of life.  According to fossil evidence, the fossils that appear to be only a few tens of thousands of years old or younger appear for the most part the same as species alive on earth today.  If these designs for life were complete, tested together in an ecology that had been developed over millions of years, why would God throw away what could be useful to Him and start from scratch?  Why not simply recreate or re-assemble those species exactly according to the genetic coding or "blueprints" that had already been designed and tested?

This could explain why scientists find such a close relationship and similarity between the genetic coding of similar species today.  The existing species, though not descended from common ancestors (they were created, brought into physical existence directly by God during the six days of creation week six thousand years ago), could have been created according to the PATTERN, the GENETIC DESIGN, of species that were developed over millions of years of breeding and genetic engineering from a common ancestor.  They would have the same DNA, the same genes as the species that existed before.  They would have the same body structure, appearance, and behavior.  God restored whatever was good that was already designed.

As I said before, I am only suggesting this as a possibility and I am not saying this is what definitely happened.  But it can illustrate the general principle, that events could have occurred in the distant past, events managed and directed by God, which can account for the fossil evidence.  I have tried to suggest a possible reason for God to create life gradually, using angels as His agents to manage an ecology that was growing in size and complexity at a pace the angels could learn to handle.  Perhaps it was not this way at all, and God has other reasons for creating life the way it appears in the fossil record.  I do not know.  But I know that scientists cannot prove that God did not create species even gradually over hundreds millions of years.  And if they cannot prove that God did not develop species gradually by designed change from one generation to the next, all from a common ancestor, then they cannot prove that evolution is true.

And I know of nothing in the Bible that rules out the hypothetical scenario I described.

How the Theory of Evolution Dominates Our Society

Our society as a whole is turning farther and farther away from God, and rejection of faith in the existence of God and in the truth of the Bible is a big part of this trend.  Atheistic evolution teaches the idea that there is no God who intervenes in this world and this life, and that the variety of life that exists came about through natural causes only.

Hard-code evolutionists are very militant in promoting their faith in "no God" to the point that they use whatever influence and powers they have to silence or marginalize their critics.

Scientists, educators, and journalists who believe in God and His intervention and who reject atheistic evolution are often persecuted if they voice their views on this subject.  They can lose their jobs if they question evolution or voice support for the principle of intelligent design.  Academic and scientific freedom to question evolution or consider design by an intelligent creator does not exist, except on the fringes.  Mainstream institutions as a whole do not allow freedom of expression and ideas in this area.  Those who suggest that God had a hand in the development of species are ridiculed.

Evolutionists may justify this by saying that there is a consensus view in science that evolution is true and that scientists should subscribe to the consensus view.  But the consensus can be wrong, and science has often been advanced by those who have challenged the consensus view.  Besides that, one of the reasons that the pro-evolution consensus view exists today is that freedom to disagree or challenge evolution in scientific teaching and work has been suppressed.  It is a consensus based on group pressure, intimidation, persecution, and enforcement, not on reason.  Dissent is not tolerated.  Scientists know that if they speak or write against evolution or even question evolution it will be difficult or impossible for them to obtain research grants, to obtain peer review, to be published, or to work at respected institutions.

Questioning evolution can be a career-destroyer for a scientist, teacher, or journalist. 

Among themselves, evolutionists will acknowledge problems with the theory of evolution, but not publicly, and when challenged by anyone outside their belief system, they close ranks to present a unified front and attack anyone who questions evolution.  And they do it with a fanaticism and vehemence that reminds me of the great religious persecutions of the past. 

Atheistic evolutionists regard belief in God as irrational and those who believe in God as irrational.  Some will not hesitate to question openly the sanity of those who look at the evidence and disagree with evolution, or will sometimes calling them "stupid" or "idiots."  

This vehemence suggests to me that hard-core evolutionists are afraid of honest scrutiny.  They passionately believe in Darwinism, but they know that they cannot prove evolution really happened.  They do not want publicity for the problems that exist in the theory of evolution.  They are afraid of competition from ideas that challenge their evolutionist ideology.

If a scientist sees a characteristic in a living organism that cannot be explained by random mutation and natural selection, and he suggests that this characteristic may be evidence of intelligent design, he is accused of trying to introduce religion into science. 

Atheistic evolutionists behave as if they are involved in a great crusade to "enlighten" the masses and to minimize, marginalize, or stamp out belief in God.  Most will not say this openly.  But this is the pattern of their teaching and behavior.  And they have succeeded in making their belief system the dominant, guiding view in science research, education, and public media.

Most believers in God who have debated this issue, and many who have not, have experienced the emotional response, sometimes to the point of viciousness, of those who promote evolution.  Hard-core evolutionists take it very personal when someone challenges their faith.

I have no doubt that one of the effects of the persecution against those who do not accept the evolutionary faith is to cause many who disagree with evolution to keep silent to protect their careers.  Amos 5:13 describes an evil time when the prudent keep silent.  The militancy of those who promote the theory of evolution and the silence of those who oppose it only increases the dominance of the theory in our national culture and public life.

But this dominance is based on intimidation, not on proof or on objective examination of the evidence.  Evidence is only interpreted according to the assumption that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes, and examination of evidence according to this assumption can never be objective.

The effect is that honest scientific investigation into the origin of species is hindered.

Can Darwinism explain the origin of all species?  Are the mechanisms of undirected mutation and natural selection sufficient to explain the species that exist today?  That is a question that science cannot answer honestly because science never examines that issue honestly.  Those who would examine that question honestly are silenced.  Intimidation and persecution are used to promote only one answer to that question.  It has never been decided on the merits of evolution verse intelligent design, nor has it ever been decided on the basis of objective examination and interpretation of evidence.

As long as freedom to examine that question is hindered, it can never be honestly answered by science, and science's teaching on this subject can never be trusted.  

Atheistic evolution has become the dominant worldview of government, science research institutions, education, and media in the United States.

And while evolution is dominating our culture more and more, our moral values and interest in and respect for the Bible are declining.

I do not think this is a coincidence.  The teaching of evolution promotes disrespect for God and the Bible and weakens right moral values.

Even atheists usually have some "moral values."  But their moral values are misguided attempts of man to define right and wrong without God, and they are actually in competition with God who establishes the right moral values in the Bible.  Likewise, the scientific community sets itself up as the ultimate discoverer of truth.  It believes its scientific method is the best and only reliable method for learning about the world, and it has no regard for divine revelation from God in the Bible.  In effect, a materialistic scientific community sets itself up as god in place of the true God of the Bible.

The scientific community has a high opinion of itself.

Many scientists consider their profession to be superior to other professions.  They regard their method of seeking truth as superior to all other methods.  They consider science higher than other fields of study, superior, more accurate, more trustworthy.  They trust science more than anything else and expect others outside of science to do the same.  They consider themselves more objective, more honest, more rational than those in other fields.  Not all scientists feel this way, but many do.

Many non-scientists also have a high regard for science.  To call something "scientific" is high praise, virtually synonymous with saying that it is true.  To call something "unscientific" is like saying it is wrong.

Many people are impressed with science because of the technical achievements of our society.  We are impressed with modern inventions such as automobiles, televisions, spacecraft, computers, etc.  Most people attribute those inventions mostly to advanced scientific knowledge, and the scientific community is highly esteemed as a result.  Many people are not aware, however, that most inventions are produced through a system of trial and error more than exact scientific insight.  Inventors and engineers may try and fail a hundred times to make an idea work before finally succeeding, just a little.  Then they may try and fail a hundred times more before they succeed in improving an invention slightly.  The public does not see the failures.  They see the final results, the inventions that work well enough to sell.

Science is also a process of trial and error.  Scientific theories are advanced and accepted, only to be found to be wrong and overturned later. 

And the same human frailties and faults that exist among all people exist in the scientific community.  There is the same politics, dishonesty, self-seeking, and self-deception among scientists as exists in any human community.

The scientific community trusts itself and its methods for finding truth.  But God in the Bible teaches that man's ways and knowledge are not to be trusted (Psalm 146:3-4, Jeremiah 17:5-8).  "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9, KJV).  "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God...Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:1-7, KJV).  "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22, KJV).     

The Future of Atheism and Evolution

What does the future hold for the theory of evolution, and what is the future of atheism?

What is the relationship between evolution and atheism?

Atheism needs evolution, but evolution does not need atheism.  One can believe there is a God and also believe that all species came into existence through evolution through natural forces only.  Some believe exactly that.  But that is not the dominant worldview that is driving the evolution agenda today.

Atheism has become the dominant culture in the western world.  But this is likely to change in the next few years.

Right now, there is a marriage of convenience between evolution and atheism.  Evolution gives atheism an explanation for life without a creator.

But atheism has a weakness.  It has no viable explanation for the universe itself.  Evolution is no help here.

There are Bible prophecies that show that near the end of this age before the return of Christ there will be supernatural signs and wonders worked by both true and false prophets (Matthew 24:23-25, Revelation 11:3-6, 13:11-15).  At that time there will be a great religious deception.  It will be hard for mankind to deny the existence of the supernatural then.  I think there will not be many atheists when this occurs.

But the theory of evolution is not primarily an attack against belief in the existence of God and the supernatural realm.  Evolution can be used by atheists to support their belief that there is no God, but primarily evolution is an attack against the authority of the Bible.  And that challenge to the authority of the Bible will continue even when false prophets are working supernatural signs and wonders.

One can believe God exists and also believe that evolution is true.  But you cannot believe the Bible and evolution.

According to the Bible, God created the ancestors of the plants and animals we see today in six days about 6,000 years ago.  He may have made the existing species according to a similar genetic pattern as species that existed millions of years ago as far as Genesis is concerned, but it was still a separate creation.  And man is not a product of evolution.  The first humans, Adam and Eve, were created 6,000 years ago.  Our ancestors did not evolve.  The theory of evolution therefore is directly contrary to the authority of the Bible. 

But false religion is itself contrary to the Bible.  False religious teachers, who themselves may be sincere but are misled and deceived, teach doctrines contrary to the Bible.  They may pay lip service to the Bible, but they do not believe what the Bible actually says.  Instead, they follow their traditions and opinions and twist selected scriptures from the Bible to fit their doctrines.

How do they do this?  In many cases, they say that the Bible should not be taken literally, that it does not mean what it says.  This is often done with the creation account in Genesis.  They will tell you that the six days of creation are not six literal days, but indefinite periods of time that could have lasted millions of years.  It is a subtle way of calling God a liar.  And this pattern of changing any passage of scripture into allegory, metaphor, and symbolic language can be used to refute what the Bible clearly says about any major doctrine.

This is one reason why there are many churches with many different beliefs all claiming to get their beliefs from the Bible.  Each group reads its beliefs INTO the Bible instead of believing what the Bible literally says. 

Can false religion be compatible with the theory of evolution?  Yes!  Both are against the authority of the Bible.  Both disbelieve what the Bible plainly says.

And the theory of evolution can be used by false religion to contradict a literal understanding of the Bible.  It starts with Genesis.  How you read Genesis sets the pattern for how you will read the rest of the Bible.

The theory of evolution can be used to contradict a literal understanding of Genesis.  Once a person, thoroughly trained in the doctrine of evolution, reads Genesis thinking it is symbolic only and doesn't really mean what it plainly says, the pattern is set for the reader to read the rest of the Bible in the same attitude of doubt and disbelief.  Then it simply becomes a matter of anyone interpreting the rest of the Bible to mean anything he wants it to mean.  This opens the door for false religious teachers to teach false doctrines based on their personal or traditional interpretation of the Bible.  Those teachers may be sincere, but deceived by the traditions they were raised in.

Thus, the theory of evolution can become a tool of false religion just as it is presently a tool of atheism.  Evolution serves false religion as well as atheism because it weakens the authority of the Bible in the minds of those who read it allowing false teachers to contradict the Bible and get away with it.

The Bible can be a protection against false religious doctrines IF the reader is willing to believe and obey what it says.  But if the reader is conditioned to think that God doesn't mean what He says and that anything in the Bible can be interpreted symbolically, then the door is open for the reader to believe the false interpretation of Bible scriptures by false religious teachers.  And the theory of evolution opens that door by training people to believe that Genesis cannot be literally true.

Science in the Millennium

God is not against scientific investigation of the natural world.  God created the laws of the universe and allows them to work predictably so men can discover those laws and control his environment to a degree.  Also, the laws of nature that man can discover glorify God by showing His tremendous wisdom and creative power.

Science is the study of natural processes.  There is nothing wrong with science limiting itself to the study of natural processes only.  Science is not equipped to do anything else.  But the science community should not assume on faith that natural processes are the only processes and then try to promote that faith in the name of science.  Science should accept the fact that its limitation in studying natural processes is also a limitation on what processes science can study and what truths science can discover, and that there is truth that other fields of study can discover that are out of bounds for science, truth that is as legitimate and important, even more so, than any truth science can discover.

Bible prophecy shows that after Jesus Christ returns to the earth, the earth will be filled with the knowledge of God (Isaiah 11:9).  There will be no atheists at that time.

At that time, science can still be used to investigate the physical world.  But science will know and accept its limitations.  No scientist will promote the view that the physical world is all there is.  Scientific knowledge will be secondary to and guided by revelation and teaching from God.  It can be used to study repeatable processes in the laboratory, but will not be used to construct human invented theories that contradict God's revelation about the origins of life and the universe.

Conclusion

The vast universe and the design of the laws of the universe are evidence of a creator God who planned, designed, and created the universe.  The creation is proof that God exists and has supreme power and intelligence.

The founding fathers of our country understood this.  The founding document for our nation, the Declaration of Independence, states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."  The leaders of our country knew that it was self-evident that men were created by a creator God.  They did not think that the idea of God was as ridiculous as flying spaghetti monsters.

But we are not the same kind of people today.  We have become consumed with the pursuit of pleasure and materialism and have denied the God who created us.  Atheistic evolution is the atheist's explanation for a creation without a creator.  Faith in evolution makes it easier for the atheist to deny the existence of God.  And denying the existence of God helps the atheist to feel free from any obligation to obey God's laws.

Evolution can never be proved by science because science will not look at both sides of the question of creation vs. evolution without bias, which is required for rational proof.  It is an anti-religion, anti-God faith.  It is a chosen belief system, chosen for subjective reasons, without physical proof.  And this faith is a faith taught by government supported schools in the United States today.  Materialism based on belief in evolution has become the dominant culture in the United States.  Public education and mainstream media adhere to this faith.  Those who voice opposition are marginalized.

God calls the atheist "fool" and lists the belief that there is no God among the general sins and unrighteousness of mankind.  And atheistic evolution is among our national sins that are leading us to total ruin.

I quoted the Declaration of Independence, but I cut the sentence short.  Here is the complete quote:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  As a nation, we are founded on the principle that it is God who has endowed human beings with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  But as a nation, we are abandoning that principle.

How ironic that at a time when we are denying the existence of God, whom the founders of this nation attributed as the giver of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that we are soon to lose our lives, our liberties, and our opportunities to pursue happiness.  Bible prophecy shows that that we will soon lose our lives and our freedom and be subjected to slavery and incredible suffering.

The Bible warns about a great time of trouble and punishment called the great tribulation, and Bible prophecy warns that this punishment will soon fall upon the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for our sins.  This great time of trouble is greater than any time of trouble and suffering in all human history, so great in fact that about 90% of our people will die and the remainder will suffer horribly in a great captivity and slavery.

The warning of this punishment and the details of the prophecies about it are the subject of the next and final chapter.