Evolution versus Creation - The war

By Ken Ham

 There is a war in society--Christianity versus humanism. Too few realize that the essence of the conflict lies firmly at the foundational level--creation versus evolution--Because it is beneficial in waging successful warfare first to identify the field, this chapter establishes the true nature of the battlefront.

The media and the public education system tells us that "creation" cannot be taught in schools because it is religion, while  "evolution" is science. It is easy to grasp the basic tenets of science and quickly come to the conclusion that evolution is really a religion.

 Creation and evolution are equally scientific and religious. The controversy is not religion versus science, but the science of one religion versus the science of another religion.



 After the lecture, a young man approached me--"What you said...it's suddenly like a light bulb lighting up in my head!" A young lady standing nearby stated, "I realized today that my understanding of Christianity was like starting in the middle of a movie--you took me back to the beginning--now I understand what it is all about."  A middle-aged man approached,  "This information is like a key. It not only unlocks the reason as to why we have problems in society today it is the key to knowing how to be much more effective in witnessing for Jesus Christ....Thank you."

 These are challenging days. On the whole, society is becoming more anti-Christian. We are seeing steady increases in homosexuality, support for abortion on demand, unwillingness to obey authorities, unwillingness to work, marriage being abandoned, clothing being abandoned, an increase in pornography, and an increase in lawlessness, to name but a few areas. Christians are fighting for their freedom even in so-called "Christian" nations.

 What has happened in society to bring about these changes? Why is it that many people are cynical when you talk about Christ and seem to be closed to the Gospel? There must be some foundational reason for this change.  In this book we will discover the basic reasons why modern society has turned away from Christ. More importantly, there will be outlined for you a Biblical (and hence successful) way to reclaim lives for our Saviour.

 Years ago, our society was based on Christian absolutes. People knew what was right and what was wrong. Behaviours such as sexual deviancy, easy divorce, public lawlessness, abortion on demand, pornography and public nudity were considered to be wrong. Varying punishments for offenders were meted out by society. Value judgments were basically built on Biblical principles (for example, The Ten Commandments). Most people accepted or respected a belief in God.

 Recently more and more people have rejected the God of the Bible. As belief in God has been abandoned, people have questioned the basis of the society in which they live. For instance, if there is no God, then why should they obey the Ten Commandments? Why should anyone say that homosexuality is wrong? Why should not women be allowed to have abortions whenever they desire? Once people eliminated God from their consciences, they set about to change any laws based on Christian absolutes that held God as Creator (and thus Owner) of everything.

 Christian absolutes have been diluted or removed as the basis of society and replaced with a world view that says, "We do not have to accept that the Christian way of doing things (basing our world and life view on Biblical principles) is the only way; we must tolerate all religious beliefs and ways of life." However, this "tolerance" really means an intolerance of the absolutes of Christianity. This false idea of tolerance has subtly undermined Christianity, and most Christians have not recognized what was really happening. Many Christians have been deceived into believing they have no right to impose their views on society. We are told, for instance, that anti-abortionists have no business impressing their particular bias on society. Have you ever heard anyone say this about the pro-abortion groups? The result is one bias being imposed on society by the pro-abortionists--legalized abortion on demand! No matter what you do, you cannot avoid the fact that a view is being imposed on someone by someone. There is no such thing as neutrality, although many Christians become ensnared in the trap of believing there is.

 It is like the many theological and Bible colleges that say, "We do not take a dogmatic stand on Genesis. We tolerate all views." But what happens when someone comes along and says, Will you allow the view that says you must take Genesis literally? "Oh, no!" they say, "We cannot allow that view because we tolerate all views!" In reality, they have taken a dogmatic stand to teach a dogmatic view to their students--a view that you do not have to take Genesis literally if you do not want to do so.

 At one lecture I gave, a person said in an angry tone, "This is not fair, you are insisting that we take Genesis literally, that God actually took six days, that evolution is not true and that there really was a world-wide flood. You are being intolerant of other people's views. You must show tolerance for people such as I who believe God used evolution and that Genesis is only symbolic." I then asked, "Well, what do you want me to do?" The person replied,"You must allow other views and be tolerant of opinions different to yours." "Well," I said, "My view is that the literal interpretation of Genesis is the right view. All other views concerning Genesis are wrong. Will you tolerate my view?"  The person looked shocked, and he hesitated. I could almost hear him thinking, "If I say yes, then I have allowed him to say you cannot have another view such as mine; if I say no, then I have obviously been intolerant of his view--what do I do?"  He then looked at me and said, "That's semantics!"  What he really meant was that he had lost the argument and did not want to admit his intolerance of my position. The fact is, he had taken a dogmatic, closed-minded position.

   Occasionally people are upset when dogmatic statements are made. They say, "You cannot be dogmatic like that."  This in itself is a dogmatic statement. Many think that some people are dogmatic and others are not.  It is not a matter of whether you are dogmatic or not, but of which dogma is the best dogma with which to be dogmatized!

 At one time, a group called "Toleration" began.  They were insisting on a tolerance of all religious ways, beliefs and customs. They said that we had to stop intolerance in society. In their promotional leaflet explaining their viewpoint, it was interesting that they listed all the things they were against. And most of the things of which they were intolerant were related to Christianity. What they really meant was that they wanted a tolerance of anything in society, except Christianity!

 The idea of open-mindedness comes from the notion that there is no such thing as absolute truth, or that truth cannot be absolutely known. Some say, "There are no absolutes."  Ironically, this premise has become their one absolute. Such ideas are derived from an anti-Biblical philosophy which holds that everything is relative.

Christian absolutes--those truths and standards of Scripture which cannot be altered--are becoming less and less tolerated in society. Eventually this must result in the outlawing of Christianity. When Christian absolutes were the basis of society, immoral activities such as homosexual or lesbian lifestyle and pornography were outlawed. There has been a fundamental shift. Our society is now based on a relative morality: that is, a person can do what he likes and is answerable to no one but himself as long as the majority of people can be persuaded that their interests are not being threatened. This results in society's being told that no one can say anything against those who choose to be sexual deviants, go naked publicly or do whatever they wanted (within the limits of the law, which is also changing to become more "tolerant"   of people's actions).

God's absolutes dictate that there are rules by which we must abide. Christianity cannot co-exist in a world community with relative morality as its basis. One or the other will yield. There are two world views with two totally different belief systems clashing in our society. The real war being waged is a great spiritual war. Sadly, today many Christians fail to win the war because they fail to recognize the nature of the battle.

 It is my contention that this spiritual conflict is rooted in the issue of origins (creation/evolution). Although the thought may sound strange or new to the reader, Biblically and logically this issue is central in the battle for men's souls.

 Most people have the wrong idea about what the creation/evolution question involves. Instead of perceiving the real issue, they have been deceived into believing that evolution is science. It is not a science at all (refer to Chapter 2). It is a belief system about the past. We do not have access to the past. We only have the present. All the fossils, all the living animals and plants, our planet, the universe everything exists in the present. We cannot directly test the past using the scientific method (which involves repeating things and watching them happen) since all evidence that we have is in the present.

 It is important to understand that special creation, by definition, is also a belief about the past. The difference is that creationists base their understanding of creation upon a book which claims to be the Word of the One who was there, who knows everything there is to know about everything, and who tells us what happened. Evolution comes from the words of men who were not there and who do not claim to be omniscient.  This whole issue revolves around whether we believe the words of God who was there, or the worlds of fallible humans (no matter how qualified) who were not there.

 Four Commonly Believed Facts about the Scientist in the White Coat:

 1. He is unbiased
 2. He is objective
 3. He is infallible
 4. He wears a white coat

 Four Truths about Scientists

 1. He is BIASED(look at his books).
 3. He is HUMAN!
 4. He seldom wears a WHITE COAT!

 It is astonishing in this so-called "scientific age"  that so few people know what science really is or how it works. Many think of scientists as unbiased people in white laboratory coats objectively searching for the truth. However, scientists come in two basic forms, male and female, and they are just like you and me. They   have beliefs and biases. A bias determines what you do with the evidence, especially the way in which you decide that certain evidence is more relevant or important than other evidence. Scientists are not objective truth-seekers; they are not neutral.

 Many people misunderstand bias, thinking that some individuals are biased and some are not. Consider an atheist, for example: such a person believes there is no God. Can atheists entertain the question, "Did God create?"  The answer is, "No."  As soon as they even allow it as a question, they are no longer atheists. So, to an atheist scientist looking at the fossils and the world around him, it would not matter what evidence he were to find. It could have nothing to do with Biblical events, such as Noah's Flood. Even if he found a big boat on the top of Mount Ararat he could never allow that evidence to support the claims of the Bible regarding Noah's Ark. As soon as he did, he would have abandoned his atheistic religious framework. An atheist is one hundred percent biased.  This should be kept in mind whenever one reads a textbook or sees a television program produced by an atheist.

 I have seen many examples of bias exhibited in various ways. I was on a talk-back radio show in Denver, Colorado, and the radio announcer said I had seven minutes to give the evidence for creation. He would just sit back and listen. So I went into detail about what the Bible says concerning Noah's Flood, the Tower of Babel, and other related topics. I explained how evidence from various cultures and from the fossil record supported what the Bible said.   Various other aspects of creation were explored to demonstrate the truth of the Bible. At the end of the seven minutes the announcer made this comment on the air, "Well, I did not hear any evidence for creation at all; so much for that!"  Of course, what he meant was that he was not prepared to accept the evidence that I had given him because he wanted to hold on to his own bias; agnosticism. An agnostic is one hundred percent biased. He believes one cannot know anything for sure, so, no matter how much evidence he hears, he can still say, "I do not know." As soon as he knows, he has stopped being an agnostic. From a Biblical perspective, Romans 1 ( #Ro 1:18-21) teaches that the evidence for creation is all around us and, therefore, anyone who does not believe in the Creator and Saviour is condemned. It is also important to recognize that one does not have to see the Creator to recognize the fact of special creation. Just because one cannot see the architect and builder who designed and constructed a house does not mean that there was not an intelligent designer behind it.

  But what about a revelationist, that is, a person who believes that the God of history has revealed the truth about Himself by means of a book? ( A book which claims over three thousand times to be the Word of God.) Can such a person consider the opposite question, that God did not create?  No! Because he starts with the premise that God is Creator and His word is true.

  Atheists, agnostics and revelationists (and theists) hold to religious positions; and what they do with the evidence will again be determined by the assumptions (beliefs) of their religious positions. It is not a matter of whether one is biased or not. It is really a question of which bias is the best bias with which to be biased.

  Glaring examples of bias can be seen in public education in response to the creation ministry. The following conversation, which is rather typical of students in the public school system, shows what bias is all about.  After a presentation on creation, one student stated, "There is no way Noah's Ark could be true--he could not have fitted all the animals on board."  I then asked the student, "How many animals would he have needed to have put on board?"  He gave the usual reply: I don't know, but it certainly couldn't have happened."   I then asked him how big was the ark?  Again he answered, "I don't know, but he couldn't have fitted the animals on board."  In other words, here is a student who did not know how big Noah's Ark was, or how many animals God would have needed to put on board, but he has already decided it is a fairy tale that could not have happened.

  At one town a keen supporter of creation ministries told how he had spoken to fellow academics at a local university concerning Noah's Flood.  They, of course, mocked and scoffed at the idea. He then mentioned that someday someone may find Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat. One fellow academic turned to him and said that even if they found a big boat that looked like Noah's Ark on the top of Mount Ararat and dragged it to the main street of the city, he would still refuse to believe it. His bias was showing.

There have been many occasions where I have been able to give a convincing and logical presentation to the students. Many of them then looked to their teachers to try to make some point that could demonstrate where I was wrong. It is easy to read the expressions on the students' faces. They are saying that this all sounds convincing but surely there must be something wrong with it because they really do not want to believe that the Bible is true. A teacher may respond by asking a question that sounds to the student as if the teacher has proven me wrong. In the students' eyes there is no way that I would be able to answer the question.  Often students spontaneously break into applause (their way of rejoicing over what they think is my demise). However, it is interesting to watch their faces and see their jaws drop when I am able to give a reasonable answer to the question--they are back where they started. It is sad to see that, for many of them, they have already made up their minds and decided they really do not want to believe the Bible.

  I am often asked how people change their biases. This is a good question.  As a Christian, the only way I can answer is to say that in this area it has to be a work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that we either walk in light or in darkness (#Ac 26:18) gather or scatter, are for Christ or against Him (#Mt 12:30). The Bible clearly declares that no person is neutral and that all do have a bias.  Since it is the Holy Spirit who convicts and convinces people of the truth, it is only through the work of the Holy Spirit that our biases can change. As Christians, our job is to bring the Word of God to people in a clear and gracious way, and pray that the Spirit might use our words to open hearts and minds to Christ. I believe Christians understand bias better than others. All Christians were once lost sinners biased against God. They have seen how Jesus Christ can change their bias as He transforms their lives through the power of His Spirit.

  One of the reasons why creationists have such difficulty in talking to certain evolutionists is because of the way bias has affected the way they hear what we are saying. They already have preconceived ideas about what we do and do not believe. They have prejudices about what they want to understand in regard to our scientific qualifications, and so on.  

 There are many examples of evolutionists who have totally misunderstood or misinterpreted what creationists are saying. They hear us through their   "evolutionary ears," not comprehending in the slightest the perspective from which we are coming. As creationists, we understand that God created a perfect world, man fell into sin, the world was cursed, God sent Noah's Flood as judgment, and Jesus Christ came to die and be raised from the dead to restore all things. In other words, our message is one of Creation, Fall and Redemption. However, because evolutionists are used to thinking in  "uniformitarian"  terms (i.e., basically the world we see today--the world of death and struggle--has gone on for millions of years), they do not understand this creationists perspective of history.

 An interesting example came when Dr. Gary Parker was debating a professor from LaTrobe University in Victoria, Australia. One of the evolutionist's "refutations"  of creation centred around his assertion that there were too many imperfections in the world to have been made by a Creator. This particular evolutionist would not understand, even after it was clearly presented, that the world we are looking at today is not the same world that God created because of the effects of the Fall and Flood.  To understand the creation/evolution issue correctly, one must have a complete understanding of the beliefs adhered to by both creationists and evolutionists.

  In another example, an evolutionist biologist said that if God made all the animals during the fifth and sixth days of creation, why do we not find parakeets and mice in the Cambrian strata alongside trilobites?  Dr. Parker then explained that parakeets and mice do not live in the same environment as the trilobites. Dr. Parker explained to this scientist that the fossil record should be seen in terms of the sorting action of a world-wide flood. Because animals and plants live in different areas, they would have been trapped in sediments representative of their particular environment. Again, we see bias causing a misunderstanding that so many have of the creationist position.

   The reader needs to be aware that, when we discuss creation/evolution, in both instances we are talking about beliefs, that is, religion. The controversy is not religion versus science, as the evolutionists try to make out. It is religion versus religion, the science of one religion versus the science of the other.

  Evolution is a religious position that makes human opinion supreme. As we shall see, its fruits (because of rejection of the Creator and Lawgiver) are lawlessness, immorality, impurity, abortion, racism and a mocking of God. Creation is a religious position based on the Word of God, and its fruits (through God's Spirit) are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. The creation/evolution issue (is God Creator?) is the crux of the problems in our society today. It is the fundamental issue with which Christians must come to grips. The creation/evolution issue is where the battle really rages.

  --- End of Chapter --- 


 The term "evolutionist" is used extensively throughout the following chapters. In other parts of this book, we will discuss the ideas of Christians who try to marry the concepts of evolution and the Bible. However, because the majority of evolutionists are not Christians, I wish the reader to understand that the term "evolutionist" is used to mean those who believe that evolution--in the sense of time, chance and struggle for survival--rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.

   In the official journal of the South Australian branch of the Australian Sceptics (this organization has similar aims to American humanist groups), the entire 30 pages of The Southern Sceptic, Volume 2 Number 5, Autumn 1985, were devoted to an attack on the creation science ministry in Australia and the United States. On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by an unobservable God."  These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religious group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

   Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).

  The famous evolutionist Theodosius Diobzhansky ( The American Biology Teacher, Volume 35, Number 3, March 1973, page 129) quotes Pierre Teihard de Chardin: "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow."  To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of the sayings of Jesus as quoted in #Joh 8:12  "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."  In #Isa 2:5 we are exhorted to  "walk in the light of the Lord."  In #Isa 2:22

we read, "Cease ye from man ...."

  It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involves observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientist was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

  All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe--in fact, everything, exists now--in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated. (Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows:  "... cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith."  Surely, this is an apt description of evolution.) Evolution is a belief system--a religion!

  It only takes common sense to understand that one does not dig up an "age of the dinosaurs" supposedly existing 70-200 million years ago. One digs up dead dinosaurs that exist now, not millions of years ago.

  Fossil bones do not come with little labels attached telling you how old they are. Nor do fossils have photographs with them telling you what the animals looked like as they roamed the earth long ago.

  When people visit a museum they are confronted by bits and pieces of bones and other fossils neatly arranged in glass cases. These are often accompanied by pictures representing an

color:green">artist's impression of what the animals and plants could have looked like in their natural environment.  Remember, no one dug up the picture, just the fossils. And these fossils exist in the present. For example, in Tasmania there is a sandstone bed containing millions of pieces of bones, most of which are no larger than the end of your thumb. The evolutionist have placed a picture at one particular excavation so that tourists can see how the animals and plants lived in the region  "millions of years ago."  You can stare at those pieces of bones for as long as you like, but you will never see the picture the scientists have drawn. The picture is their story of their own preconceived bias, and that, ultimately, is all it ever can be.

  When lecturing in schools and colleges, I like to ask the students what can be learned from a fossil deposit. I ask the students whether all the animals and plants contained in the deposits lived together, died together, or were buried together. I then warn them to make sure that the answer they give me is consistent with true scientific research. As they think about it, they come to realize that they do not know if the organisms lived together because they did not see it happen. They do not know if the organisms died together because they did not see that happen either. All they really know is that they are buried together because they were found together. Therefore, if you try reconstructing the environment in which they organisms lived just from what you find there, you could be making a terrible mistake. The correct use of science needs to be emphasized in our educational system.

  The only way one could always be sure of arriving at the right conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon one's knowing everything there is to know. Unless he knew that every bit of evidence was available, he could never really be sure that any of his conclusions were right. He would never know what further evidence there might be to discover and, therefore, whether this would change his conclusions.  Neither could a person ever know if he had reached the point where he had all the evidence. This is a real problem for any human being--how can he ever be one hundred percent sure about anything?  It is something of a dilemma, is it not? It is like watching a murder mystery on television.  What happens? It is obvious. Halfway through the viewer knows who did it--the butler. Towards the end, this conclusion is still obvious. Three minutes before the end, new evidence is admitted that you did not have before, and this totally changes your conclusions. It was not the butler after all!  

 However, starting with the irrefutable evidence of the Scriptures, we are told that in God the Father and His Christ " ... are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" ( #Col 2:3 ). There is no way any human mind can know all there is to know. But we have Someone who does. This ends our dilemma. We are in no doubt that what God has revealed in His Word is truthful and accurate. He is not a man that He should lie (#Nu 23:19) about anything. In time, we will know more fully.   He will add to our knowledge, but He will not change what His Word has already revealed.  

 No human being, no scientist has all the evidence. That is why scientific theories change continuously. As scientists continue to learn new things, they change their conclusions.

  The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers now were entirely different! 

 I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change. 

 I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we do not know everything, is it not? We do not have all the evidence. 

 "Yes, that is right," he said. 

 I replied, "But, we will never know everything."  

 "That is true,"  he answered. 

 I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence." 

 "Quite correct,"  he said. 

 I replied, "That means we cannot be sure about anything."

 "Right," he said.

  "That means we cannot be sure about evolution."

  "Oh, no! Evolution is a fact,"  he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

  Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But, the beliefs that these models are built on are not. The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present.  Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed.  Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not science!

  --- End of Chapter ---



 Biblical creation is the religion upon which Creator-honouring science is built (often called scientific creationism). It is based on the Word (the Bible) of the One who claims that He was there in the past (who is, in fact, outside of time). He moved men by His Spirit to write His words so that we would have an adequate basis for finding out and understanding all we need to know about God's creation.

  We need to define in detail what we mean by the creationist view. This consists of basically a threefold view of history--a perfect creation, corrupted by sin, to be restored by Jesus Christ. A summary of these concepts is as follows:

  1. In six days God created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them from nothing--each part is designed to work with all the others in perfect harmony. When God completed his work of creation, He called it all "very good."  There was no death. People and animals were all vegetarian, and the earth appears to have had a mild climate from pole to pole, an ideal underground nutrient-rich watering system, and no storms.

  2. However, we no longer live in the world God originally created. Because our first parents placed human opinion above God's word (as we continue to do), struggle and death entered the world and God cursed the creation. Charles Darwin called this struggle to the death "natural selection" and offered his theory as a substitute for the Creator. Evolutionists later added accidental changes in heredity (mutations) to their theory. But death and accident do not create: instead they bring disease, defects, death and decay into the world God created.  After mankind's sin and rebellion (the Fall) the earth became so filled with violence and corruption that God destroyed that world with a flood and gave it a fresh start with Noah, his family and the animals in the ark. Fossils--billions of dead things buried in rock layers which were laid down by water all over the earth--remind us of God's judgment on sin.

  3. After the Flood, we find that the earth is again filled with violence, corruption and death because of human sin--putting man's opinion above God's Word. Christ came to heal and restore, and by His death and resurrection, He conquered death. We may be born again into eternal life as new creations in Christ. Thus as surely as God created the world and judged the world with the Flood, our ungodly world will be destroyed by fire. For those who trust in Jesus, however, there awaits eternal life in the new heavens and new earth. There will be no more corruption because God's curse will have been removed.

  The Bible claims that God knows everything. He has all knowledge. If this is true, then the Bible is the word of Someone who knows everything there is to know. If we want to come to right conclusions about anything, the only sure way would be to start with the word of the One who has absolute knowledge. We Christians must build all of our thinking in every area on the Bible. We must start with God's Word, not the word of finite, fallible man. We must judge what people say on the basis of what God's Word says--not the other way around.

 At one seminar, I stated that we must build all of our thinking upon God's Word. That must be our starting point. One minister, in a rather irate manner, made the comment that he should be able to go to the Bible to find out how to fix his car. Obviously, he did not understand that the principles that govern our thinking in every area must come from the Scriptures. These principles are immutable. The Bible certainly does not contain the details as to how to fix a car. On the other hand, modern science, which enabled the development of the car, arose when people began to base their science upon the Bible. Therefore, this machine runs according to the laws which God made. We should be able to investigate these laws which God made. We should be able to investigate these laws and apply them in different areas. No informed evolutionist would question that fact that modern science arose from a Biblical foundation.   In other words, what we believe and how we think depends upon the basis with which we start. The Bible contains the very foundational principles and details necessary to develop correct thinking in every area.

  Unfortunately, too many people have started with the word of men and then judged what the Bible states. What an arrogant position this is! We cannot tell God what He should say. We must be prepared to come totally under His authority and listen to what He says to us. Yes, creation is religion, but it is based on revelation from the all-knowing Creator.  Evolution is religion, but it is not based on revelation from God. Instead it is based on the words of men who were not there--men who (by their own admission) do not know everything. And these men, the Bible informs us, are biased against God and His Word.

  If the Bible is not the infallible word of the One who knows everything, then we have exactly nothing. We can never be sure about anything. What then is truth: my word, your word, or someone else's word? In fact, how do you determine what truth is or how to search for it?

  I recall a seminar where a young man stated, "I cannot believe in creation. I believe in the Big Bank. We are just products of chance and random processes. There is no God. What do you say to that?" I replied, "Well, if you are a product of chance, your brain is also a product of chance.   Therefore, the thought patterns that determine your logic are also products of change. If your logic is the result of chance processes, you cannot be sure it evolved properly. You cannot be sure you are even asking the right question because you cannot trust your own logic."  He was dumbfounded. Afterwards he came up and asked for the best books on the subject and said he would have to seriously think this through. He had begun to realize that, without an absolute (God), he had nothing.

  Christians have the Bible which claims to be the Word of God. We can also take what the Bible says and see if the evidence of the present does fit. If we take the book of Genesis, which claims to be the account of our origins and history, we can see what it says concerning how the world was created and what subsequently happened. We can decide what we would expect to find if the Bible is true (this is our scientific model relating to creation). Then we can look at the world to see if the evidence is there (that is, investigate the present--all the evidence we have--to see if it fits with our model).

  For example, we are told that God created living things in distinct kinds, or groups. We can postulate, therefore, that animals and plants should be found in kinds--that one kind cannot change into another.  In fact, this is exactly what we do find (in living as well as fossil organisms).

  Genesis tells us that, because of wickedness, God judged the world with a world-wide flood. If this is true, what sort of evidence would we find? We could expect that we would find billions of dead things (fossils) buried in rock layers, laid down by water and catastrophic processes over most of the earth. This is exactly what we observe.

  In #Ge 11:1-9

, we read of events that occurred at the Tower of Babel.  Again, we can ask the question: If this event really happened, what evidence would we expect to find? Does the evidence from the cultures throughout the world fit with this?

  Again, the answer is overwhelmingly "Yes." All humans can interbreed and produce fertile offspring--we are all the same kind. All humans have the same colour (genetics tells us it is differing shades of the one colour). If all humans had the same ancestor, Noah (and ultimately Adam), then all cultures have developed since Noah's Flood and the division at the Tower of Babel.

  Evolutionists talk about the different races of people in the world today.  The term "races" can be used in various ways depending upon the definition you accept. Sadly, evolutionists have used the term in the sense that some groups of humans have not evolved as far as others. When they use the word "races" they are really talking about different levels of human beings dependent upon the point to which they have evolved. Due to evolutionary teaching through the educational system and the media, many in the general public tend to think of the term "races" as applied to the human race in an evolutionary sense.  Because of this situation, it is probably better for Christians to talk about one race in regard to humans, not different races. "God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" ( #Ac 17:26).

  It is known that nearly every culture in the world has stories or legends from which one could almost write the book of Genesis. Most cultures have a story about a world-wide flood similar to Noah's Flood. Creation legends--not dissimilar to the account in Genesis regarding the creation of woman, the entrance of death and the original man and animals being vegetarian (#Gen 1:29,30)--abound in cultures around the world. This is powerful evidence that these stories have been handed down generation after generation. The true accounts are in the Bible, but the similarities in cultures around the world are not what you would expect from the viewpoint of an evolutionary belief system.

 I recall being taught that the reason the Babylonians (and others) had stories similar to Genesis was because the Jews had borrowed myths of Babylonian origin to include with their writings. However, when this idea is closely investigated, we find that the Babylonian stories are rather grotesque and quite unbelievable in almost every aspect. For instance, Babylonian stories concerning the Flood have gods cutting each other in half and water spewing out. When you read the Biblical account of the Flood, it is certainly the more reasonable. When one thinks about it, stories handed down generation after generation that are not carefully preserved--particularly if they are handed down by word of mouth--do not improve with age. The truth is lost and the stories degenerate markedly. The Biblical records have been handed down in written form, carefully preserved by the superintendency of God and have not been corrupted. The Babylonian stories, which only reflect the true record of the Bible, are the ones that have become corrupted, due to the limitations of human fallibility.

  Thus, starting with the Bible and working from this foundation, the evidence of the present should fit. And it does, confirming our faith that the Bible really is the Word of God. (A number of books that detail the scientific evidence in support of the Bible are listed at the end of this book.) However, this "proves" nothing scientifically, because, in relation to the past, nothing can be proven. Neither creation nor evolution can be proven scientifically.

  Both creation and evolution are belief systems that result in different scientific models and totally different interpretations of the evidence.   This is not to say that the creationist will always have exactly the right explanation about every fact. Because the creationist does not have all available data, there will be many things that may not be able to be explained in specific terms, but nonetheless, all facts should fit into the framework as set by the Biblical record.

  At one church, a scientist (in a very vocal manner) stood and told the congregation not to believe what I had said.  He informed them that, as a scientist, he could show them that what had been said concerning Noah's Flood and creation was wrong. Science, in his words, had proven the Bible to be wrong. Since he had stated publicly that he was a Christian, I asked him if he believed there was a person in history called Noah. He said that he did believe this. I asked him why. He told me that it was because he had read it in the Bible. I asked him if he believed that there had been a world-wide flood. His answer was no. I asked him why he did not believe there was a world-wide flood. He then went on to say it was obvious from science that there could not have been a world-wide flood--that science had proven the Bible wrong. I asked him how he could trust the Bible when it talked about Noah if he could not trust the Bible when it actually talked about Noah's Flood. I also suggested that the particular evidence he was using to say there could not have been a world-wide flood might be interpreted in other ways. That is, because we do not have all the evidence or know all the assumptions involved in many of the techniques used for dating the earth, etc., was it not possible that his interpretations could be wrong and the Bible could be right after all? He admitted that he did not know everything and it was possible there were assumptions behind some of the scientific methods to which he was referring. This additional information could totally change his conclusions. He admitted this was a possibility, but then he went on to say that he could not believe the Bible in all areas (e.g., Noah's Flood) until science had proven it. Again, there was a problem in understanding what science is all about and the fact that science cannot prove anything in relation to the past. I accepted the Bible as the Word of God and therefore interpreted the evidence on that basis.  He was accepting the Bible as containing the Word of God but subject to proof by science. Of course, if you hold to the latter approach, as scientists make new discoveries and their theories change all the time, your attitude towards the Bible must continually change too--you can never be sure of anything.

  In the public school system I tried to ensure that my students were taught a correct understanding of science and how to think logically. However, when first teaching creation in the public schools, my approach was different. I would show the students the problems with evolution and how evidence supported the creationist view. However, when the students went to another class where the teacher was an evolutionist, the teacher would just reinterpret the evidence for them. I had been using what can be called an "evidentialist" approach--trying to use the evidence to convince students that it showed evolution wrong and creation true.

  I then changed methods and taught students the true nature of science what science can and cannot do. We looked in detail at the limitations that scientists have in relation to the past. They were told that all scientist have "presuppositions" (beliefs) which they use in interpreting the evidence. I shared with them my beliefs from the Bible concerning Creation, the Fall, Noah's Flood and other topics, and how one may build scientific models upon this framework. It was demonstrated how the evidence consistently fitted with the creation framework and not within that of the evolutionists. I had begun teaching from what could be called a "presuppositionalist" approach. The difference was astounding. When students went to the other classes and their teachers tried to reinterpret the evidence, the students were able to identify for the teachers the assumptions behind what the teachers were saying.  The students recognized that it was a teacher's belief system that determined the way in which he looked at the evidence. The question of origins was outside of direct scientific proof.

  This so perplexed some teachers that, on one occasion, a young teacher came to me and abrasively stated that I had destroyed her credibility with the students. She had taught her students that coal formed in swamps over millions of years. I had taught the students that there were different theories as to how coal could be formed. Since this teacher had not indicated the limitation of science and had taught her swamp theory of coal as fact, her credibility was undermined in the eyes of the students.  The reason she was so angry was that she had absolutely no comeback and knew it. So did the students. 

 I would appeal to any who have the opportunity to teach in the area of creation/evolution to research carefully their method of teaching. Ensure that the students understand the whole philosophical area, that is, the presuppositions and assumptions involved. Not only will students understand the issues better but they will also become better scientists and thinkers as a result. 

 Another existing result of this presuppositional approach emphasizing the limitations of science, is the questions students ask at the end of such a program. When using the evidentialist approach, the questions students asked would be on topics such as, "What about Carbon 14 dating?" "Have scientists not proved fossils are millions of years old?" "Surely given enough time anything can happen."  However, using the presuppositional approach (which brings the issues to the fundamental belief level), it was exciting to see a dramatic change in the nature of questions asked: "Where did God come from?"   "How do you know the Bible can be trusted and is true?" "Who wrote the Bible?" "Why is Christianity better than Buddhism?"  The students started to see the real issue. It was really a conflict of beliefs. The results of this approach have been astounding.  Many, many students have listened to the claims of Christ and have shown real interest in Christianity with a number of conversions as a result.  

 This method works not only for public school students but for Christian school students as well. It is also an important method for the general public. One of the things they recognize is that creationists and evolutionists all have the same facts. Therefore, what we are really talking about are different interpretations of these same facts. They begin to see the real argument: two religions in conflict. Evidence is important (which is why creationists do intensive research), but the method used to present the evidence is vital to the success of the presentation.  

 After giving a lecture to a class at a Christian college in Kansas, using material similar to that discussed already (plus additional scientific evidences), a student stated in front of the rest of the class, "What you have said sounds logical and very convincing in regard to accepting Genesis as truth. But, you must be wrong, because my geology professor here at the college believes in evolution and would totally disagree with you. If he were here now, I am sure he could tell me where you are wrong, even if I cannot see it at the moment."  I replied "Even if your geology professor were here and said things I do not understand because I am not a geologist, if what he says disagrees with the Bible, then he is wrong. If I cannot explain why he is wrong, it only means I do not have the evidence to know the errors in his arguments. The Bible is the Word of God and is infallible. I am sure I could get a creationist geologist to find out why your professor is wrong, because the Bible will always be right!"  

 Surely, as Christians blessed with the conviction that arises from the work of the Holy Spirit, we must accept the Bible as the infallible, authoritative Word of God--otherwise, we have nothing. If the Bible is to be questioned and cannot be trusted, and if it is continually subject to reinterpretation based on what men believe they have discovered, then we do not have an absolute authority. We do not have the Word of the One who knows everything which means we have no basis for anything.  Truth is spiritually discerned. Without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit there can be no real understanding.