Evolution: Introduction

	"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
	The  opening verse of the Bible is so simple and  so  clear. Yet few statements in the Scriptures have sparked more discussion and  disagreement than this one has.  "Who am I?" "Where  did  I come from?"  "Where am I going?"  People have argued these questions almost from the beginning of time.
	Thales,  Plato  and Aristotle were  promoting  evolution  or theistic evolution hundreds of years before the birth of  Christ. When  Rome rose to power a few of her thinkers continued  to  set forth  ideas  of evolution.  After the decline and  fall  of  the Roman  empire,  however, the theologians were recognized  as  the great  thinkers.   As time passed, science  and  religion  became entwined  in  a confused mass of ideas governed by a  process  in which truth was decided by power and not by facts.
	The earth was the center of the universe because the theologians  said it was.  Galileo dared to suggest otherwise,  and  he suffered the consequences.  This may have been one of the opening battles in a war which has been raging ever since.  As scientists began  to obtain more and more control over their own  fields  of study,  they were sure of only one thing.  The Bible  was  always wrong.  As is usually the case, one form of blind intolerance was replaced by another.
	In the late 1700s a man named Erasmus Darwin was  publishing his theories about evolution.
	"As  for the being of a God, the existence of a soul,  or  a world  to  come," he wrote, "who can know  anything  about  them?  Depend on it, my dear madam, these are only  the  bug-bears  by which  men of sense govern fools."^1
	It  was into this atmosphere that a grandson,  Charles,  was born.  We might take just a moment to note that  Charles  Darwin proposed few ideas, if any, which were original.  It should  also be  noted that he never bothered to mention any of his predecessors in his writings. (ibid.)  
	Just  as  Charles Darwin was not original  in  his  theories about evolution, neither was he very creative when it came to his ideas  about religion.  His thoughts were those of  his  grandfather.
	"I own  that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as  I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence or goodness on  all sides of us," he wrote Professor Asa Gray of  Harvard  in 1860.  "There seems to me to be too much misery in the world.  I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have  designedly created (certain parasites)  with  the  express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of  caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.  Not believing this, I see  no necessity in the belief that the eye was  expressly designed."^2 
	Still,  the same Charles Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species, that "To suppose that the eye, with all its  inimitable contrivances  for adjusting the focus to different amounts  of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic  aberration, could have  been formed by natural selection,  seems,  I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree."^3
	The  facts  told Darwin that the human eye had  a  designer.  His faulty  theology told him that there could be  no  designer.   Was Charles Darwin a great scientist or a poor theologian?
	Darwin,  like  countless others before and after,  was  the victim of a major flaw in reasoning.  He failed to recognize that there  are religious facts and religious theories, just as  there are  scientific  facts and scientific theories.  Religious  facts come  from the Bible.  Religious theories come from  human  minds and are, by the way, generally wrong.  There have frequently been conflicts between religious theories and scientific facts.   This is  where  Galileo ran into trouble.  There have also  been  conflicts between religious facts and scientific theories, just as there have been between religious and scientific theories,  religious theories and facts, and even scientific theories and facts. The only area where there has never been disagreement is  between religious facts and scientific facts.
	Since  those who opposed Galileo represented  the  religious power of the day, the scientists assumed that they were correctly stating what the Bible taught.  This was simply not true.   These men were as wrong in their theology as they were in their astronomy.
	What the Bible has to say about astronomy is in total agreement with scientific fact.
	"When  He  established  the heavens, I  was  there,"  Wisdom states in Proverbs 8:27, "When He inscribed a circle on the  face of the deep." 
	"It is He who sits above the vault of the earth," we read in Isaiah 40:22,  "and its inhabitants are like  grasshoppers,  who stretches  out the heavens like a curtain and spreads  them  out like a tent to dwell in." 
	"He  stretches  out the north over empty  space,"  Job  26:7 notes, "and hangs the earth on nothing."
	Biblical fact always agrees with scientific fact.  There  is no argument between the Bible and science.

	Unfortunately,  even among people who claim to  believe  the Bible there  are those who have accepted as fact that  which  is actually scientific theory.  Their reaction is to try  to  twist biblical  facts to conform with religious theories which in  turn agree with  the scientific theories.  This  results  in  various forms of what is known as "theistic evolution."
	Well-meaning  people make statements like, "The Bible  tells Who made the world, but it does not attempt to explain how He did it."
	"It  is  He  who made the earth by  His  power,"  Jeremiah 51:15-16 notes, "who established the world by His wisdom, and  by His  understanding He stretched out the heavens.  When He  utters His  voice, {there is} a tumult of waters in the heavens, and He causes  the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He  makes lightning for the rain, and brings forth the wind from His storehouses." 
	"By faith," Hebrews 11:3 instructs, "we understand that  the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." 
	While some would claim  that the creation cannot be observed or duplicated  and therefore has no place in  science,  we  must consider that evolution finds itself in the same situation.   In reality,  if everything was limited to pure science, there  would  little science at all.
	Others  might  say  that the Bible does not claim  to  be  a science textbook.   This is only half true.    While  the  Bible makes  no  claims about being any kind of textbook, it  must  be observed that the Bible has always agreed with scientific  facts. We challenge anyone to find a science  textbook  published  ten years ago which can make the same boast.  We challenge anyone  to say the same thing about any science text book in use today.   We all  know that scientific discoveries render  textbooks obsolete within a short time.  Isn't it interesting to note that the  very book  which does not claim to be a science text is the  only  one which  is consistently in agreement with scientific facts?  Discoveries have been made by scientists following ideas taken  from the Bible, even though these ideas contradicted scientific  theories of the day.
	Perhaps  we  will have time in the future to take  a  closer look  at theistic evolution.  For now, though, we  should  understand that it is a compromise which is not required by any facts, either  scientific or biblical.  And it is a compromise which  is acceptable neither to evolutionists nor to those who believe  the Bible account of creation.
	The origin and development of our world is a topic which can be as vast as the universe itself.  A discussion  of  evolution must deal with the initial source of life as well as with  mechanisms  for  its development.  We must also consider  methods  for determining  the  age of the earth as well as for  objects  found buried in it.  It is interesting to recognize the strong bias  in some  scientific circles which results in discrimination against findings supporting creation.  It is also enlightening to examine admissions made by various evolutionists.
	As  we continue our discussions, keep in mind the things  we have seen so far.  We must not confuse biblical fact with  religious theory.  We must not confuse scientific fact with scientific  theory.  No scientific fact has ever been found  to  disagree with the Bible.  And the battle we are experiencing today between creation  and evolution is as much the result of faulty  theology as it is of faulty science.   
	It  is  sad to note that, when the  situation  arises,  many evolutionists  will  reject scientific fact  rather  than  accept biblical fact.
	For  example,  it has been an accepted fact of  science  for centuries that spontaneous generation does not occur.  In  other words,  life does not come from non-life.  But evolutionists  are willing to believe that this law was violated once in the distant past rather than accept the existence of a Creator.
	Why is this so sad?  It is sad because it paralyzes them  to the point that they are not able to examine the world with  open minds.   They aren't even able to practice good science,  since good science demands a total lack of prejudice.
	But, more sadly, they aren't able to take an honest look  at God.  They prefer to follow myths.  And only the truth will  set us free.

Unless otherwise noted, "Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(R), (C) Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission."

1) Thompson, Bert. 1981. The History of Evolutionary Thought. Fort Worth, Texas: Star Bible and Tract Corp. pp.51,52.
2) Morris, John D. 1992. “Natural” Selection Versus “Supernatural” Design. Impact 223 (January): pp.3,4.
3) Darwin, Charles. 1859. Origin of Species. Quoted in The Quote Book, Creation Science Foundation, 1984, p.13.*

*Evolutionists attack the use of this quote, noting that Darwin went on to defend the development of the eye.  Still, his words are clear and not taken out of context.  The complete text is available online at:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html