What a Biologos Sponsored Study says about NOMA Support and the Clergy Letter

Leave a comment

oliwaterI don’t agree with all of the conclusions the 2014 National Study of Religion & Human Origins1, but most of it seems sound. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, the study was sponsored by BioLogos and conducted by Calvin College sociologist Jonathan Hill. Over the course of June and July 2013, the survey asked 3034 U.S. adults a variety of questions concerning human origins.

The NSRHO’s study determined that 37% (approx. 1122) of those surveyed were creationists, 16% [approx. 485] were theistic evolutionists, and 9% [approx. 273] were atheistic evolutionists. The remaining 38-39% [approx. 1183] were unsure or held uncommon beliefs [such as those denying both common descent and creator at the same time]. The rest of the survey concentrates on the approximately 1,880 individuals who identified as either creationist, theistic evolutionist or atheistic evolutionist.

Creationists & Evos on the Compatibility of Science & Religion

If we’re considering just the responses of the 1880 individuals who identified as creationist, theistic evolutionists or atheistic evolutionist,  59.5% were creationist, 26% were theistic evolutionist and the remaining 14.5% were atheistic evolutionists.

2014SSRHO-fig39The NSRHO study showed that a larger percentage of theistic evolutionists [54%] were more likely to believe that religion and science are compatible compared to 33% of creationists and 21% of atheistic evolutionists. That kind of makes sense when you think about it; what’s surprising is that this percentage isn’t higher amongst theistic evolutionists. It’s almost as if a little less than half don’t believe their own press. If we do the math, we find that about 370 creationists, 262 theistic evos and 57 atheistic evos or 689 total [36.7% of those identified as one of these three categories] believe that science and religion are compatible.

Keep this in mind when you read the following, from the survey itself:

“The scientist Stephen Jay Gould coined the phrase “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) to describe his position that science has a domain of teaching and religion has a domain of teaching, and that these domains do not overlap. One is strictly about empirical facts and mechanical explanation (science) and the other is about moral value and ultimate meaning (religion).How popular is this view among the general public? Figure 40 shows the agreement with the following statement: “Science is about facts and religion is about faith.The two do not overlap.”In this case, it is the atheistic evolutionists that stand out from the rest. A majority tends to agree with this statement (62 percent), while only 32 percent and 26 percent of theistic evolutionists and creationists agree.”

2014SSRHO-fig40So when you look at the percentage of folks who affirm NOMA [the idea that religion relates to faith while science relates to facts], the very philosophy atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Weekend are based on, the largest percentage of support comes from 62% [169 individuals] of atheistic evolutionists surveyed and only 32% [155 individuals] of the theistic evolutionists surveyed. This suggests that atheists see this compromise for what it is: the implicit surrender of Biblical authority to the authority of science chained to pure naturalism. As Jesus said in John 3:12: How can we believe what God says concerning heavenly things if we doubt what He says about earthly things?

There were also approximately 292 creationist respondents who affirmed NOMA. Overall, this means that, of the approximately 1880 individuals identified as being part of one of these  three categories, 32.7% affirmed NOMA. If we reduce the sample to on this 32.7%, we find that 47% of NOMA supporters were creationist, 27% atheist and 25% theistic. This leads to the obvious conclusion that the dangers of NOMA in relation to Biblical authority have not been effectively or adequately explained to our congregations. Instead, this seems to be an ill-advised attempt on the part of fellow creationists to distance or insulate the Bible from criticism.

What this means for the Clergy Letter

If these numbers hold, and we included all three parties on the conservative end, we would say that at least a quarter or more of the Clergy Letter’s signators were actually atheists. Since creationists are unlikely to sign a letter that presents evolution as truth, an adjustment must be made. Of those who identified as evolutionists and NOMA supporters, 52% were atheists. This would infer that 6776 of the current 13031 signators2  of the Christian Clergy Letter are atheists, meaning they aren’t valid Christians at all. This would certainly make sense of the significant number of atheists I discovered among his signators; however, it is unlikely that this is the case as it would require a greater number of atheist clergy than are likely to exist if survey data from elsewhere is included. In fact, atheistic clergy may such a small minority as to be negligible.

For example, a survey3 sampling clergy beliefs on the historicity of Adam & Eve and whether evolution was the best explanation of life found that only 21% of Evangelical, Mainline and Catholic clergy disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that “Evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life” and only 29% of those same clergy agreed or strongly agreed that “Adam and Eve were real historical persons.” These numbers would presumably include both clergy of the atheistic and theistic evolutionary positions, so the largest amount of support the Clergy Letter could receive is 29% of Christian clergy. We note that these numbers seem to correspond to the 25% of theistic evolutionists who affirm NOMA.

By comparison, 70% of Evangelical, Mainline and Catholic clergy disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life and 62% agreed or strongly agreed that Adam and Eve were real historical people. If we take a conservative measure of the situation, we can reasonably hypothesize that every Clergy Letter signature represents at least two more members of clergy who would oppose it!

Then why aren’t more churches standing on the authority of God’s Word from the very first Word? Why do 26% of creationists affirm the principles of NOMA while affirming the historical veracity of Genesis in contradiction?  The obvious conclusion, again, is that we have not adequately or effectively conveyed how NOMA undermines both the ultimate authority of Scripture and the historical basis of the Gospel.

What better way to affirm the authority of God’s Word and make these issues clear than to lead your congregation in a celebration of Creation Sunday?


  1. To give an example, like Gallup, I think that they inadvertently skew their own findings by not clarifying that the Bible is to be taken literally does not mean it is to be taken woodenly. While I affirm that the Bible is literally true, as do most creationists, I would not be able to select that option because it makes no allowances for the symbolism of prophesy, hyperbole, round numbers, etc.
  2. 6776 of 13031?? The math nerd in me is screaming “Holy palindromes, Batman!”
  3. JELEN, T. G., & LOCKETT, L. A.. (2010). AMERICAN CLERGY ON EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM. Review of Religious Research, 51(3), 277–287. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20697345

Who do you love? Ending the Great Pew Divide at the Altar

Leave a comment


Pews“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”

Those words, recorded in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13, were spoken by Jesus. While the immediate context was that no man can serve both God and money, there is a broader context that applies to what I usually call the Origins Argument:

No man can serve two authorities. This basic axiom is the basis for Jesus’ warning that you can’t serve both God and money. It finds a parallel in Jesus’ warning that a house or kingdom divided against itself cannot stand [Mark 3:24-25] and James’ warning about the inherent instability of a double-minded man [James 1:8].

We’ve been arguing about where we came from ever since Darwin – Before Darwin even! It’s important to know where we came from because the answer to that questions tells us who we are and how we should live our lives and even where we’re going.

Creationists believe that we were made in image of a loving personal Creator. He tells us how to live our lives and we should do what He says because He knows what’s best for us. We are loved and we matter on an individual level. What we do here and how we live our lives matters a great deal in regards to eternity.

The Battle Defined

A lot of folks see the Origins Argument as a tug of war match between Biblical Creationism and Evolutionism for our allegiance, but that’s not really the case. It’s a battle of worldviews, yes, but on either end of the rope stands Biblical Creationism and Pure Naturalism.

The doctrine of naturalism is that nature is all there is and that all the answers to our questions must be purely natural. Our modern scientific search for truth has been hitched to this principle. No Gods allowed. No acts of God. No God-written revelations either! Naturalists affirm that we came about by natural processes in which God was never necessary. There is no particular reason for our existence; we are happy cosmic accidents. There is no ultimate standard by which we should live our lives, especially since we are racing towards nothingness. Do what makes you happy and don’t think about your own mortality too much.

The confusion arises because some folks who claim to respect the Bible or who even believe much of the rest of the Bible have taken up some of the positions of the naturalists where it comes to our origins. Pastors are genuinely concerned that making a stand on the Origins Argument will lead to divisions and strife across the pews. Let me say this: the only way to end the division is to be unified, not in deceptively respectful silence on the issues but rather in unity of conviction.

The Consequences of Naturalism as our Ultimate Authority

Make no mistake: pure naturalism and supernatural revelation are directly at odds. Christians may utilize naturalism as a tool for investigation precisely because they calibrate the findings of naturalism against the supernatural revelation of the Bible. Some Christians have failed to do that where it concerns Genesis and in doing so, they seem to have forgotten the particular demands of naturalism. Naturalism does not allow for men to walk on water, multiply a kid’s lunch or raise men from the dead. Naturalism does not allow for the possibility of God. Naturalism can never entertain the possibility that He has ever acted or spoken.

Millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution is the inevitable conclusion of a man searching for answers to our origins while looking through a lens of pure naturalism. Of course, the Bible’s revelation in Genesis concerning supernatural creation and a much younger universe stands in direct contradiction their premise and its conclusions, so naturalists suppose the Bible must be wrong where it claims these supernatural things. Make no mistake: naturalists don’t just claim that the Bible is wrong in Genesis. The premise of naturalism makes the very idea of a supernaturally inspired Bible ENTIRELY wrong because the supernatural can never be considered as a possibility, be it a Deity, a miracle or the supernaturally-inspired Word of a Deity. The implication of naturalism would be that the Bible was written by fallible men who were trying to understand the universe. Likewise, naturalism could never consider that Jesus never did anything out of the ordinary, nor that He was in any way God – and certainly it could never entertain the suggestion that He rose from the dead! Naturalism implies that no God has ever acted on behalf of His people or spoke through any so-called prophets, however well-intentioned, and that no supernatural agent answers prayers now.

The Flaws of Naturalism as an Ultimate Authority

The thing is that naturalism is an assumption. All it can give us are all-natural answers that may or may not be true – and are certainly false where the supernatural was involved!

The trouble is that naturalism is also blind. It cannot tell you the supernatural does not exist or hasn’t done anything. It simply refuses to consider them as viable answers. It pretends as if the supernatural will always be irrelevant to the question and further pretends as if all-natural answers must supplant supernatural ones by virtue of being natural. If the supernatural agency was actually involved, anyone committed to naturalism would have no means to determine that they were ever wrong! So a commitment to pure naturalism becomes exactly the sort of willful ignorance Peter warned about in 2 Peter 3:3-7.

Naturalism is also inconsistent.  Those committed to naturalism must presume that nature can do supernatural things that no one has ever observed: that everything can come from nothing or comic book multiverses; that specified. complex intelligence such as that found in our DNA can come without an intelligent source; that life can come from non-life; and even that an amphibian can become a prince if we just give it enough time, chance and all that!

Hard-wired for Belief in a Supernatural Creator

Naturalism isn’t even our instinctive belief about the universe.

Research by Dr. Deborah Keleman of the University of Arizona has shown that children have this natural tendency to interpret features of the natural world things as if they have a purpose and this naturally leads to a belief in a Creator God, what has been termed “intuitive theism.

The Bible says much the same thing in several passages. For example:

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11:3

Romans 1:19-20 is much more bold in its declaration of intuitive theism:

“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:”

Did you catch that? There’s no excuse for ungodliness or unbelief because the Creation itself leads to intuitive theism – and as I’ve always said, if you suspect there’s a god of any sort, it’s in your best interests to see what sort of god that is and what they might expect of you!

Richard Dawkins admitted to this human tendency toward intuitive theism when he wrote that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Of course, he believes that these things only appear to be designed. His beliefs are supported by the consensus of modern science and are taught as scientific fact in our public schools.

So the question becomes: Can we trust our instincts or do we need to lump our intuitive theism with the fairies and monsters under the bed and other childish things, grow up, and accept the cold, hard facts of the all-natural world? Or was there a reason Jesus warned us that “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein” [Luke 18:17]? Is it possible that God stacked the deck in favor of theistic belief because he really is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” [2 Peter 3:9]?

More to the point: Are we the product of a benevolent Creator who spoke the cosmos and everything else into existence over the course of six calendar days about 6,000 years ago? Or are we the product of all-natural processes consistent with those we observe today taking place over the course of millions and millions of years?

Loving God Enough to Take Him at His Word

This all comes down to which authority we ultimately love more. If you love your wife, you wouldn’t trust somebody else’s word over hers unless there was a compelling reason. The God we love, the God described in the bible,  is someone who is all-powerful, knows everything, never makes mistakes and never lies, so why would we ever trust someone else’s word of His?

Churches across USAmerica and the world need to return to their first love and start trusting the God they say they love at His Word. The Bible doesn’t claim to be the work of fallible men trying to figure out God, but rather claims to be a supernatural revelation from God. The Bible doesn’t just say it contains truth; it claims it IS truth. It doesn’t make these claims lightly: its claim to supernatural revelation is authenticated by fulfilled Bible prophecy and the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We may liken the Scriptures to an infallible eyewitness account. So when naturalists make certain claims about our origins, we may say that we have a witness who says the facts should be interpreted a different way if we want to get at the truth [and not just the conclusions of naturalism]. In this way, we can calibrate our investigation of the natural world and lift the blinders naturalism would commit us to.

The Bible says that two cannot walk together unless they be agreed and that a house or kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Creationism isn’t creating division in churches; the division occurs when people abandon the ultimate authority of the Bible and the faith once delivered for another authority. Naturalism as our ultimate authority is a blind, inconsistent assumption, but can be a useful tool of investigation if calibrated against the supernatural revelation of God’s Word.

This Creation Sunday [Feb 14, 2016], lead your church and your family into a commitment to the truth of the Bible as your ultimate authority for the sake of the love you have for its Author.

How Rejecting Biblical History Damned Charles Darwin

Leave a comment

defgenbookcoverYesterday, we happily supported Question Evolution Day in lieu of Darwin Day, as we have for the past few years. Of course, Biblical Creation has never been simply about questioning evolution; rather it has been about affirming the historical veracity of Genesis. Oh yes, we definitely fight against the influence of microbes-to-man evolution in our culture and, therefore, we point out the mortal flaws in the theory, so questioning evolution is a part of establishing a case for creationism; however, creationism isn’t merely a reaction against evolution.

The problem with microbes-to-man evolution is that it is the product of science chained to pure naturalism. The Biblicist recognizes the truth of God’s Word when it says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. The Biblicist likewise notes that we may expect the present world to be uniform because it is upheld by God’s will and He has promised it will continue according to the processes we observe [Genesis 8:22]. Thus we may accept the assumption of uniformitarianism except where Biblical revelation reveals that these uniform processes were not the causes of past events [ie, the Creation Week, the Fall, the Flood, the origin of differing languages at babel, the miracles of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ, etc]. We reject microbes-to-man common descent evolution because the Bible makes a positive declaration in the Creation account, the Flood account and in passages dealing with Levitical law that plants and animals were created after their kind, which implies a limit to the amount of variation an organism can undergo. In the interests of full disclosure (and to silence those who claim that creation science isn’t really a science since our science never changes in regard to new observations), one should know that creationists once supposed that a created kind was analogous to a species, but further observation has caused us to realize that this assumption was incorrect; yet we still note that a dog remains a dog, whether a wolf, English bulldog or an Australian shepherd, and recognizably so, so some level of limitation to the amount of change an organism is capable of is evident (which limitation is also implicit in the Biblical phrase “after their kind” and “according to their kind”). Creationists affirm observable speciation, mutation, adaptation and natural selection [though we affirm the latter as a preservative mechanism against the deleterious effects of the Fall (i.e., mutations) rather than the creative mechanism Darwin proposed] as variation within created kinds, and we now propose that the created kind is generally found at the family taxon.

If we begin with the fear of the Lord, we start with His Word as our ultimate authority and calibrate our observations according to its superior witness. Darwin didn’t start with the fear of the Lord. He began with the geology of Charles Lyell, whose book, Principles of Geology, Darwin brought along on his historic voyage aboard the H. M. S. Beagle. Darwin comments in his autobiography how he came to shed his Christian faith during this voyage:

“During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian…

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,–that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,–that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,–that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,–that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses;–by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”

We see that the reason for his loss of faith began with his rejection of Biblical history.

Darwin himself noted that the concept of theistic evolution carries with it the problem of theodicy: how can a benevolent God create through a process involving multiple mass extinction events and a process of death, mutation, suffering and more death? As Darwin objected in his autobiography:

“A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.”

By all accounts, Darwin died in his unbelief.

According to Charles Darwin’s autobiography, he was an a “theist.” The term in Darwin’s day meant someone who believed that a supernatural deity had created nature or the universe but did not intervene in the course of history, which is analogous to the modern sense of the word ‘deist.’

Darwin used the term in one famous passage in the autobiography:

“… the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker.”

In an 1879 letter, written around the same time as the autobiography and first published in Life and Letters, he writes:

“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”

Since Hebrews 11:6 says “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him,” we must conclude that neither the modern-day equivalent of a deist nor an agnostic qualifies as an authentic Christian.

It didn’t have to be that way. Millions of years of molecules-to-man evolution was never a necessary interpretation of the evidence. For example, people most often recall that Robert Fitzroy and Darwin journeyed together aboard the Beagle and perhaps even that the captain gave Darwin a copy of Lyell’s Principles of Geology and just sort of assume they agreed on the matter of evolution, but when you compare the spiritual journeys of Fitzroy and Darwin, they couldn’t be more different. Thanks to Lyell’s book, Darwin saw uniformitarian geology everywhere he looked; in Fitzroy’s later journeys, he began to see the hallmarks of the Deluge in the geology he surveyed. He later denounced Darwin’s theory publicly, on numerous occasions, and begged people to believe God rather than man.

Facts are not self-explanatory. Facts must be interpreted and we generally interpret evidence according to our presuppositions. We either presuppose pure naturalism consistent with processes we observe today or supernatural agency consistent with the record of supernatural revelation found in God’s Word.

I hope you will begin with the fear of the Lord as you search out the matter. I urge you to celebrate a Creation Sunday this February 15, 2015 rather than atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman’s proposed Evolution Sunday. If you’re still undecided, we hope you’ll take a moment to view a short video we’ve prepared called “A Tale of Two Churches.” This cautionary tale shows how abandoning a historical Genesis undermines the Gospel itself. The video can be found at http://youtu.be/SmA_SHctzI0

Crosstalk Radio Interviews Highlight Creation Sunday and Question Evolution Day

Leave a comment

Yesterday, Crosstalk radio host Jim Schneider interviewed Jay Seegert, co-founder and principal lecturer for the Creation Education Center, and Bob Sorenson, founder of Question Evolution Day.

The interview discussed the lies and misrepresentations of athiest Dr. Michael Zimmerman’s Christian Clergy Letter, discussed Evolution Weekend and the need to keep the Bible as our ultimate authority and starting point, and gave an invitation for viewers to learn more about the Creation Education Center, Question Evolution Day and [our thanks to Bob Sorenson] Creation Sunday.

You can listen to the MP3 audio of the broadcast and explore links relevant to the program at http://www.vcyamerica.org/blog/2013/02/06/evolution-weekend

For more information about Question Evolution Day, go to http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/p/question-evolution-video.html

For more information about the Creation Education Center, go to http://cecwisc.org

Darrin Clinton will be speaking on Creation Sunday [Feb 10] 2013 in Glendive, MT

Leave a comment

The Foundation Advancing Creation Truth[FACT] reports that Darrin Clinton, co-director of the Glendive Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, will be speaking at their Creation Sunday Celebration 2013 on Feb 10, 2013 at the Dawson County High School auditorium.

More information is available at http://www.creationtruth.org/creation-sunday-celebration-2013

Fact or Fiction? You Decide! by Felice Gerwitz


The following article by Felice Gerwitz was originally posted in 2009 in reaction to atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman’s Evolution Sunday.

Fact or Fiction? You Decide!

By Felice Gerwitz
Copyright 2009 Media Angels, Inc


“What can one person do?”

That is a question I’ve often asked of the Lord. Yes, I know the Holy Scriptures are full of cases of one person who did the Lord’s bidding and changed history. Yet, I’m sure you’d join with me in acknowledging that I fall far short of the attributes of any Biblical hero. Still, I continue to cry out wondering if anyone hears me. I know I tend to be melodramatic but sometimes it is the only resort I have left. You’ll see what I mean when you read the following.

Well meaning friends, customers and recipients of this newsletter keep me well informed as to the state our world is in… that is in regard to evolution. This month was no exception. I was sent an article as it appeared in the February 13, 2006 New York Times; the article is “At Churches Nationwide, Good Words for Evolution” by Neela Banerjee and Anne Berryman. In a nutshell it explained that “Evolution Sunday” was celebrated by many churches. Pastors preached that evolution should be embraced and there was no conflict in believing this and being a Christian. Is there something wrong with this teaching from the pulpit, or is it just me? Why isn’t there an uproar among all Christians? Why aren’t we beating the bongo-drums of the internet and sending emails protesting this to the Churches practicing such a wrong, wrong event? Why isn’t there a grass roots movement among Creationists (like the petitions I sign online to protest other atrocities against Christianity) to protest this outrage?

It is one thing for people to hear evolution spouted as truth by those in the field of science. They can either believe it or ignore it knowing that these people don’t have the well being of their eternal souls in mind when they teach. But, what about men of God?

What are his responsibilities to his flock? I know each of us should be responsible for ourselves and study God’s word, his moral laws, and arm ourselves daily with the armor of God to resist the “arrows of the enemy.” Still, I am saddened to read that churches would celebrate evolution.

This month, Jill’s article on Creation centers on evolutionary hoaxes of the past. (For more detailed information see: Creation Science: A Study Guide to Creation.) Many times I read about these and I think (as you possibly do), how could the people of the day believe such nonsense. Well today, we believe much more because of what the intellectual community teaches us as truth. In South Korea a prominent scientist doing stem cell research fudged his findings. He showed an amazing breakthrough that his fellow Korean scientists were not able to replicate. It brought him wide acclaim and personal advancement. It was later found (after two years) that the scientist’s findings were false (which explained why others were not able to replicate them) and his career is over. But what damage has been done by his fraudulent data on stem cells? All we hear about from the science community and popular media stars are the wonders of embryonic stem cells and how valuable they would be to cure diseases. (Human stem cells have been proven effective, while embryonic stem cells have yielded disastrous and painful results to their recipients.) According to CNN this was the largest science scandal in history.

I humbly beg to differ. I propose that the greatest science scandal in history is teaching evolution as a truth. For years, scientists have emphasized that those who believe in Creation are uneducated, fundamentalist Christians and fanatics. Evolution on the other, hand is a belief that any “well educated” person would admire, and is considered a thinking man’s science.That, my friends is the greatest hoax of our time.

And at what cost has this hoax wrought for our times? We live in a pagan culture with modernism as a god. Many don’t or won’t, take the time to really study what evolution teaches. It teaches that “educated persons should believe that Creation, as stated in Genesis, is a fable for children.” Creationists on the other hand know this is an untruth. Once again, I admonish you as parents and teachers to stay informed and arm your children with material that will teach them the difference between truth and theory.

A scientist job is not to prove a theory is true. His job is to test the theory, look at the evidence, and to interpret data with unbiased eyes. Unfortunately it is difficult for this to happen in a fallen world. Because scientists fall into language such as “the evidence points to evolution” it is considered fact. Whereas, if pressed to admit that the evidence proves evolution without a doubt most scientists would agree this is an exaggeration. Yet, evolution has enjoyed its long sojourn as fact in the schools, public and private alike.

Happily I can report there are many intellectual scientists; many working at the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) and Creation Studies Institute (www.creationstudies.org) that have shown, again and again, that evolution is false. I am not a scientist; I am an educator and a concerned parent. I read many articles that refute evolution on websites such as ICR (http://www.icr.org/). Only when we stand up and cry out to the Lord to give us the confidence, courage and intellect to do battle for Him will we be heard. Let’s join forces, you and I, as we teach a young generation of children that thosebelieving that God created the world, as He said in Genesis, are doing His will.

“My ears had heard you, but now my eyes have seen you.” Job 42:5

Felice Gerwitz is President of Media Angel®, Inc. a publishing company dedicated to producingquality materials for parents and students of all ages. Felice is an internationally recognized author and convention speaker. The Gerwitzs have homeschooled since 1986 and they have 5 children. For more information about Media Angels® or to sign up for their free online newsletter visit www.MediaAngels.com or e-mail Felice at felice@mediaangels.com.

This article was reprinted with the author’s permission and is available for download at MediaAngels.com.

%d bloggers like this: