If evolution is not the answer, then what is?

It seems to me that the relative positions of naturalists, whether evolutionists or no, and Christians are mutually exclusive which would preclude any alternative for either. The naturalist is only willing to use the five senses and the Christian is only willing to use faith as a basis for belief. It is irrelevant what theory the naturalist believes because it will always be based upon natural cause and effect. Likewise, whatever interpretation a Christian may have, it will always be subordinate to God-given faith in the Bible.With that written, it is more probable that the naturalist should have alternative theories and that the Christian should be immovable from Genesis chapters 1 through 3 and John chapter 1. A Christian would not normally believe that there was an alternative to the Bible so never entertains the thought that there is one, at least as far as creation, as traditionally taught, is concerned. For the Christian, there may be great latitute to debate HOW God created, if not explicit in the Bible, but never WHETHER God created.This idea of HOW, rather than WHETHER, seems to present a better parallel to the naturalist point of view, to me, and a more suitable place for dialogue, than a mutually exclusive Creation vs naturalism argument, at least for the sake of information sharing among people interested in the same disciplines. Likewise, the naturalist may take it for granted that a Christian is immovable from belief in God but that a dialogue may be had along some point concerning HOW an event occurred. If this can reconcile the naturalist's belief in the five senses and the Christian's belief in God then well. I don't expect Christians to move from the belief that God created everything nor do I expect that naturalists will see with anything but their natural eyes.If it is true that Christians "attack" the theory of evolution, it is equally true that Christianity itself is under attack from all quarters by naturalists. However, because the Christian's "attack" is based in the belief of a single cause for the universe - God - the Christian will never have any other answer. In contrast, the naturalist is free to pick and choose as many theories as pallatable because fossil evidence will always reveal some new species or refute the newest nuance of evolution. It is no surprise, therefore, that the naturalist's "base" is a constant, shifting sand because naturalist theories are all based upon what they see at a single point in time and never the entire fossil record as a whole - which seems to constantly refute their theories as the Bible predicts it will. Should one seek an alternative to creation, it is this - "In the beginning God." Should another alternative be required, well, then, "In the beginning God." So on en finitum. There is no alternative to the bedrock truth that God is the cause and effect of His creation. I'm sorry but I can not make anyone else believe this because belief can only come from God.

I think that both sides have more than just a professional stake in what we consider to be the origin of the universe, we also have a personal stake. For we Christians, an attack on the veracity of the Bible IS an attack on Christianity. Perhaps for you, an attack on your theory is likewise an attack on Science. Our God-given faith is a rock that can’t be explained — it just is. Why should I believe in the Creator when I once believed evolution? Because God gave me faith to believe otherwise. That faith is personal so I may take unbelief, in the form of certain criticisms, as a personal attack, on some level, whether that attack is meant to refute the misrepresentation of science or not. I believe that God created the universe in 6 days, so, to me, any other explanation than God is false. Like your defense of evolution, I equally defend Biblical truth against evolutionary, pre-conceived ideas of science that consistently ignore irrefutable evidence for global deluge. Yet, at the same time, I also know that you are only able to judge the world by what you see — and what you see is what you have faith in. Because you and I see differently, we have faith in different things. Therefore, when AIG looks at the world from a Bible based perspective, you automatically assume they are wrong, and AIG may assume that you are attacking the truth, vice versa.As to your second comment about belief versus science, well said. I never want anyone to believe that my belief in God is based upon what I dug up out of the ground. Belief is a gift from God. However, because God gave us an overview of what he did in six days, we must still look to the same creation that you see if we are to understand HOW he may have created it. It may come as a surprise to you but you and I have more in common than you suspect. Namely, faith. I believe God’s creation is a testimony to God, you believe the biom is a testament to evolution. I believe the Holy Bible, you believe The Origin of Species, or perhaps Gould, Dawkins, etc. Pastors preach Biblical truth in church, you may teach your theory in a public school or university. I can never measure God, nor comprehend what he actually did, yet I have faith that God created the universe in 6 days; you can never plumb the depths of eternity, measure the width of the universe, or make the dead come back to life, yet you have faith that there was a Big Bang, microbes to man evolution, and no basis for a Creator. As far I am concerned, that defines you as a religious person who seeks to study God’s Creation with the preconceived notion that God didn’t make it. Now, if we can only get you to come to church . . .Thirdly, Thank you for proving my point about the tactics of those who espouse Creationism. You are incorrect--the "naturalist's" base is always constant, not shifting: evolution is the cause of the diversity that exists on the planet today. This is as much a circuitous, declaration to me as my beliefs probably are to you, i.e I am right because you are wrong! Yet, how can you say that your position is constant if your theory of evolution constantly changes. If you were a Christian, and Darwin’s first book was the Bible, you would have a library of King James Versions 1859 v. 1-12, 1860, v.1-12, 1861 v. 1-12, etc. Practically one Bible for every month, or so it may seem to me. With so much shifting sand beneath your theory, the resulting dust cloud obscures all the differences and causes them to superficially appear to be a consistent whole. While you may argue that your theory is unified, other evolutionists may argue differently. I don’t argue that you have a right to believe what ever you wish, but when your theory is elevated to physical law by some, based upon their beliefs, and not because evolution can be replicated in the laboratory, it seems that your platform is shifting, and, indeed, slippery. The fact that evolutionists recognize the constant need to modify their micro-theories ought, over time, to convince the majority that the macro-theory, microbes to men, ought also to be modified into a new theory. The fossil record just does not seem to support the old one.As to, why do places like ICR try to prove "In the beginning God?. I am familiar with them but I can’t speak for them, AIG, etc. As for me, my belief in God, the Bible, God’s Creation, etc, is purely based in faith. If it was not then I could not claim to be a Christian by faith alone, without works. Not that ICR, et al are guilty of this, but some attempt to have evidential based faith whereby, Since I’ve proved God, now I know he’s real. The Bible says nothing in the New Testament about proving God before you believe — it simple requires belief. Either you believe that Jesus Christ is God or you don’t. Simple. However, to revisit my first message, there is room to theorize HOW God did something, not WHETHER he did something, if it’s mentioned in the Bible. That may be precisely what ICR, AIG, etc is doing when they debate you with the same evidence. I’ve read several laments from AIG that you evolutionists beat your dead horse instead of looking at the evidence from the same angle as they. Shall we say, Tit for Tat?

Good question but it should be phrased, Who is God? Ask him yourself. I did, and he told me. Before he revealed himself to me, I couldn’t perceive him either.

I disagree. We already learn quite a bit from each other, it’s just that AIG, ICR, etc is more candid about it. They aren’t as coy about admitting when the opposition is correct as, say, Nature. We Christians and evolutionists will certainly never walk around the garden of Eden, hand in hand, discussing God’s Creation but we can at least publicly admit when the other has a good point — AIG consistently does. And, according to AIG, at least one evolutionist organization has admitted that AIG is correct. My point is that Christians and evolutionists will never agree, but, from the Christian point of view, for us, we might build a scientific dialogue based upon HOW, not WHETHER. The WHETHER is a given for us so why debate it if it’s not debatable.
As to evolution, your’re right, there would be no room, for that is a WHETHER argument. But, where physiology, geologic mechanisms, genetics, etc can be observed today, particularly in the laboratory, there should be room for honest dialogue among professional scientists. AIG ought to be allowed to publish it’s reports in Nature but it doesn’t because of that publication’s bias. Yet, AIG and ICR both provide links to evolutionist reports, when able, so that their readers will have a comprehensive grasp of the subject.
By the way, I like the verse but my version states it thus:
Psalm 19:1-6 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Oh, and don’t forget:
Psalm 97:1-7 The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth. The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory. Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.
Or:
Exodus 20:9-11 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
To close, no one has the complete fossil record from which to prove evolution, therefore, that theory is still in flux. I think evolutionists are the ones that say that of all the species found so far, perhaps less that five percent constitute Animalia. AIG and ICR seem to think that the ever growing fossil record, in all taxa, refutes evolution rather than proves it because there is no clean geologic column in which marker species can be traced up. Rather, their wide, chaotic distribution of from single specimens to 100,000s seems to suggest a pattern of world-wide deluge rather than the familiar dry river bed, or lake paradigm.

I’m quite certain that more than just one person on this board knows more about the Bible than I do or attends an ekklesia. There are many theistic-evolutionists.Your last statement is well and simply articulated, though antithetical to mine. It reminds me of Ephesians 2:14-22:"For he [Jesus Christ] is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

An Answer in Four Parts - Part OneThank you for your repliesI see by your caustic reactions that you believe yourselves to be Christians, followers of Christ, as well as theistic evolutionists instead of atheists. I also see that you believe yourselves to be members of orthodox Christendom, perhaps a combination of pseudo-theologia and pseudo-scientia. I sincerely hope that you grow up in faith toward Jesus and out of your naturalist beliefs if you are, indeed, followers of Christ. On the other hand, I suspect that you, and most of this board, do not genuinely follow Christ based on your consistent denial of Genesis. I’m sure that if I quizzed you on Jesus’ birth, miracles, resurrection, imminent return, deity, etc, you would soon find reason to deny them too. I hope that I am wrong. Please complete this letter. Read all its scripture references carefully and pray to God for wisdom and understanding because only he can illumine you. I have no quarrel with your right to be either Christian (prayerfully so), or naturalistic (it is a free country), but I contend that you must make up your minds which one you will be. God does not countenance your denial of his testimony, either his written word, or his Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, so he does not accept your self-serving claim of sonship. With God, you must be either one or the other. You must serve him and not yourself. In John’s Revelation, Jesus told the church at Laodicea, who were in a similar predicament as you, I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:15-16)That many people are religious who believe in evolution is certainly true, but I deny that they are mature Christians, if believer’s in Jesus Christ at all. The new-born believer can be swayed by evolution, etc, but a person in whom the Holy Spirit is actually residing will not be able to deny the Bible for long without internal opposition from God, particularly if they consistently seek his guidance to show them the truth. It’s easy to say I am a Christian, for many do follow Jesus part of the way, yet they, like Judas Iscariot, or the rich young man, deny Jesus Christ’s deity at the foot of Cavalry’s cross or turn away from him on the way to it. They inevitably think that something they have done themselves will allow them access to heaven and so refuse to believe that Jesus is the only way to eternal life. Because they follow behind him part of the way, working to place their feet in his tracks as if they could fill his shoes, attempting to drink from his cup by filling one of their own, and trying to baptize themselves with his baptism by the sprinkling of water, they fantasize that their attempts have saved them. They fancy that their work, whether it be prayer, penance, priestly absolution, etc, is as efficacious as Jesus’ death at Calvary. In fact, they make their works to be co-efficacious with his and so rend from Calvary the reason why he went there alone. If they could impale themselves upon a cross next to his they would, but theirs would never be an acceptable sacrifice to God because he requires his atonement for sin to be pure and sinless, therefore he only recognizes one — Jesus’. What these professor’s believe, and what the Bible says belief is, are quite different.This distinction between works and faith is important for this discussion, and the Creation Versus Evolution bulletin board, because it delineates the difference between theistic evolutionists (who apparently outnumber the atheists on this board) and Christians. Unless one’s claim to be a follower of Christ is Biblically substantiated, the claim is worthless at best and fraudulent at worst. Where God’s Creation is concerned, Christians, by faith, believe that scientific accuracy is attained only when a close adherence to ex nihilo Creation drives one’s interpretation of the evidence. We reason that the Creator knows best, so we also pray to him that he might show us the truth. Contrastingly, the theistic evolutionist, by works, appeals to the opinion of peer review, and their own judgment, when they interpret the evidence. They reason that they know best. This, then, leaves both camps in a mutually exclusive state. The one, a Christian camp with a Christian interpretation; the other, a christian camp with a naturalist interpretation. The one with a unified belief; the other with a dichotomous belief that even atheist evolutionists don’t understand. This refusal to join Christ, yet reluctance to be atheist reminds me of Elijah in 1 Kings 18:21 who said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.Jesus’ opinion about Biblical interpretation is definitive. The Bible shows that Jesus had a literal view of scripture so it’s strange that some Christians say they don’t interpret the Bible literally yet claim to follow Christ. One wonders exactly who they follow, or what their motivation is, because if they don’t believe what Jesus believed, then why bother to tell everyone that they’re his disciples. I suppose this conundrum can be illustrated in the difference between John, the beloved disciple of Jesus (John 19:19-30), and Judas, the Friend of Jesus (Matthew 26:47-56). Theistic evolutionists are particularly guilty of claiming to follow Christ while denying everything in the Bible that doesn’t fit their naturalist philosophy. Since the translators of most new Bible versions are especially apt at this cut and paste exegesis, almost all Christ-deniers that I have ever encountered use them too. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Higher Critics discovered that the entire New Testament was a forgery, except, remarkably, three separate words — man, is, God. Theistic evolutionists ought all to read the following scriptures to understand just how much Jesus thinks the Bible is to be taken literally (in the Authorized or Geneva versions, please).Jesus had a literalist interpretation of the Bible when he mentioned God’s Creation (Mark 13:14-23), Adam (Mark 10:1-12) and Noah (Matthew 24:32-51; Luke 17:20-37). He likewise had a literalist interpretation about Sodom and Gomorrah, including the incidents with Lot and Lot’s wife (Matthew 10:5-15; 11:16-24; Mark 6:7-13; Luke 10:1-16; 17:28-37); Jonah (Matthew 12:38-45; 16:1-4; Luke 11:29-36); Heaven and Hell (Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 16:19-31); Unclean Spirits (Matthew 12:38-45); the Commandments and the Prophets (Matthew 22:34-40); Manna in the Desert (John 6:28-59), etc. He interpreted Moses’ works, the prophets, and the Psalms literally, including in all the scriptures the things concerning himself of which he said, He [Moses] wrote of me.(Matthew 5:17-20; 8:1-4; 12:38-45; 16:1-4; 19:3-12; 22:23-40; 23:1-12; 24:4-31; Mark 7:1-23; 10:1-12; 12:18-27; 13:14-23; Luke 4:14-30; 5:12-16; 11:29-36; 16:1-31; 18:31-34; 20:27-38; 24:13-49; John 3:1-21; 5:31-47; 6:28-59; 7:14-36; 8:1-11; ) He believed in the fulfilling of prophecy. (Matthew 17:1-13) He also thought that he was God, literally. (Matthew 9:1-8; 10:16-42; 16:13-28; 19:23-30; 22:41-46; 23:34-39; 24:4-31; 25:31-46; Mark 8:27-38; 9:41-50; 10:32-45; 13:24-27; Luke 9:18-50; Luke 4:14-30; 19:28-40; 20:39-47; 21:20-28; 22:63-71; 24:13-49; John 4:4-26; 5:31-47; 6:60-71; 7:14-44; 8:51-59; 10:22-38; 11:1-16, 33-44; 12:20-50; 13:1-38; 14:1-16:33; 17:1-26; 20:26-31)Therefore, taking into account the above verses in which Jesus expressed a literal interpretation of scripture, and the vehement opposition expressed by theistic evolutionists against a literal interpretation of scripture, whether in whole or in part, I can’t conclude anything more charitable than they are confused about what faith in Jesus Christ is. However, to show that the Bible accounts for their oxymoronic religious disbelief, consider the following: (Deuteronomy 29:1-9; Isaiah 6:9-13; 29:9-24; 35:1-10; 42:5-12; 43:8-13; 44:9-20; Ezekiel 12:1-16; Malachi 1:1-5; Matthew 13:1-23; Luke 24:13-35; John 12:37-43; Acts 28:23-29; Romans 11:1-32; Ephesians 1:15-23; 2 Corinthians 3:12-18, 4:1-7)I came to the above conclusion after personal discussions, internet chats, phone conversations, and the reading of books and websites by theistic evolutionists. Most have claimed to follow Christ, but some didn’t. When I attempted to discover the basis for their religious beliefs, I found that they were Unitarians, Anglicans, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, New Age, etc and so had no unified religious doctrine. However, they all agreed in one form or another that the Bible was untrustworthy and that Jesus’ deity was likewise debatable. So, when I read the words of the last Hebrew prophet, John, who heralded Jesus’ first advent, saying, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him, (John 3:36) then I must conclude that they aren’t Christians either.

An Answer in Four Parts - Part One BThank you for your repliesThe prophet John was imprisoned for bluntly telling Herod that his marriage was an adulterous arrangement between a whore and a whoremonger. So, Jesus sent comfort to John with these words, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. (Matthew 11:4-6) As John’s disciples departed, Jesus said to the multitude nearby, concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. (Matthew 11:7-8)John was rough in his application of truth toward men. He had no time to grin and say, God loves you all but hates your sin. God’s kingdom was too near to mince lies with truth. Likewise, Jesus’ candor about himself to theists brought him to Calvary. I too have no time to mince words about Jesus Christ. I am offensive to you because I will not move from God’s creation in 6 days or his flood. What else do you expect us Christians to believe? That God is a singularity? Some of you claim to be Christian, so believe in Jesus Christ or stay a whoremonger married to a whore and reap the consequences. If you can’t believe Genesis, or that Jesus is the Creator, then consider Jesus’ words to John, And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. But, if you insist in being offended in Jesus, then consider further the import of that unbelief on your soul seeing that Jesus’ prayed about you to his Father in the same chapter: I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11:25-27) I say again, repent and believe in Jesus Christ.I think three false assumptions found your challenge for an alternative hypothesis of evolution. The first, that evolution is an actual, observable phenomenon today; the second, those scientists who rely on the Bible and prayers are not scientists; and, the third, that the Bible is perfectly reconciled to the first two. I have no alternative evolutionary hypothesis, nor am I aware of any other Christian that does, because God created this universe in a special way as described in the first two chapters of Genesis. Christians believe Genesis because God gave them the gift of faith then saved their souls by it. (Ephesians 2:8-10) I go farther and say that those false professors of Christ who condemn prayer in the lab condemn faith elsewhere. They usually hide their unbelief behind a mask of reserve. These are wolves in sheep’s clothing that profess another gospel because their profession of evolution requires denial of Jesus, the Creator. (2 Peter 2:1-22) Of course, I am too kind, Peter sums it up thus: The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (v.22)It’s blasphemy to believe that evolution is our creator because John’s gospel specifically names Jesus as the Word, the creator of heaven and earth. Given the amount of scripture in my prior letter, detailing Jesus’ claims of Deity, there’s no explanation for this denial other than unbelief. That unbelief abounds is evidenced by the popularity of texts used by groups like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the so-called Jehovah’s Witness.’This archetype of modern evolutionary religion fabricated their New World Translation (NWT) so that their version of John 1:1 corrupts the truth. It reads, In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (John 1:1, NWT) Notice that they first transpose (en ‘o logos) as (logos en) which is both sloppy and unprecedented in the NT. They then translate (en ‘o logos) again, in the same verse, as was a god. There is precedent for both was a god and was a God in the NT but each instance is an anarthrous (theos), i.e. no (‘o). (see Luke 20:38, Acts 12:22, 28:6, Hebrews 8:10) But again, they could have used the only other use of (en ‘o logos) in the NT (Luke 4:32) to understand the difference between the (logos) of God and God the (logos). For various other examples of (en) see John 5:35; 6:27; 11:41; and 1 Corinthians 10:4.Since their belief in evolution requires them to deny the Genesis Creation, they also deny that Jesus is God by saying that he is ‘a’ god. Sin precedes their sloppy exegesis of the Greek as it does all attempts to write Jesus out of his own Bible. Like them, any religious organization that supports evolution produces similarly perverted material. Rome is one of the worst but the other councils, conventions, and covenants that claim orthodoxy and trust their own abilities are just as bad. They all share sacerdotal confidence in their own works which ultimately leads them to believe that the works of God’s Creation have made them too. However, just as Jesus created the physical universe in six days (John 1:1-14), he is the only one who can create a living soul in a dead sinner. (Ephesians 2:1-16) Until he does, you who don’t believe in him are as dead as the inanimate chemicals with which you hope to create life.Sinners have always sought to displace Jesus from his throne so your attempt is no new thing. Notice how Paul spoke out against the naturalists of his day when he wrote to Rome:For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:18-25)I joined this board trusting that God would either circumcise the hearts of its members with faith or that they would at least know the charges against them prior to the second resurrection, seeing that they have had over a week to digest the scripture in my prior letter. I don’t know why the founders of this board sought us Christians, instead of God, but perhaps it is, after all, a plea for help.Perhaps the embarrassing shift in Big Bang cosmology, from a defunct model of singularity, that once left room for agency in the minds of many theistic evolutionists, to the new proven Hawking/ Penrose model, that purposely destroys any possibility of agency, has vexed their theistic minds. Perhaps the embarrassing lack of generated life, since the first quixotic trial in 1953, has made them to understand, in Hawking’s words, that One can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, let alone RNA. (Life in the Universe, Public Lectures, para. 12) Perhaps, too, they finally see that, despite their best effort to measure DNA, God, and not just Heisenberg’s principle, prevents the accurate measurement of his original and hides the key to life. Or, perhaps they now know that if they can’t produce life after 50 years that it’s time to get out of the kitchen. Maybe they’re just tired of recent speculation about Martian bacterial invasions and other forms of alien migration that put the sci- in Sci-Fi. Or, perhaps it’s the lack of spiritual satisfaction theistic evolutionists must surely long for within the frigid doctrine of St. Kelvin’s gospel, verses 2.7248 through 2.7252 (an homily on temperature fluctuations that vary by millionths of a degree), that their new orthodox Rector, the Right Reverend Hawking, prates about at St. Gould the Divine’s. Whatever the reason, I know that it’s not founded in God’s righteousness.The only way that I will respond, therefore, is with the gospel that Jesus Christ is God. You may scorn him but I believe in something that God has not yet allowed you to see. I also both see and believe that you have found an anomaly in the light spectrum because your equipment was superior this time. Has your vision just now improved since 1965? Brilliant! So, what will you do when you progressively find that, as I predict you will, God’s Creation defies either measurement or duplication outside of belief in him? You will replace your present Rector for a new one, close ranks once more, and deny that God is your creator even while he watches from heaven above.Have you no idea that God has you in derision because you do not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ? Your behavior was prophesied in Psalm 2:1-6, Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. So, turn from your gods and worship Jesus Christ before it’s too late.Continued in Part One C

Part One C
Continued from One BThe Bible provides another model with which to address you: Paul’s speech to the Athenians on Mars Hill. If Job were in Athens, that city of worldly knowledge in Paul’s day, he might have quipped, No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. (Job 12:2) But he would have continued with, The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly. But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind. Doth not the ear try words? and the mouth taste his meat? (Job 12:6-11) And so, they that love to hear every vain hypothesis or discuss every speculative notion are without excuse in the end.The Bible tells us that Paul’s spirit was stirred by the idolatry of Athens so that he disputed with them about Jesus Christ in the Jewish synagogue, with the religious devout, and at the public market place. Soon, the Epicureans and Stoics, the scientists and naturalists of their day, verbally assailed the gospel of Jesus Christ, saying, What will this babbler say?, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods, because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. (Acts 17:18) Having a primordial hypothesis of evolution, but no internet, they took him to the Areopagus where they said, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (Acts 17:19-20) They had no serious ambition to believe in Jesus, they just wanted to see if there might be some new argument to replace the dead wood of the past, viz. v.21, For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing. Paul didn’t mince words either. He stood in their midst and told them that they couldn’t see God because they were blind. In his way, he said that since their agnostic poets had babbled about magesteria that they weren’t unaware of God so that God held them responsible for repentance and would no longer accept their blindness as an excuse for worshipping nature.Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and 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; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:22-31)Paul also received little positive response from the academicians of his day because the Athenians loved to dispute the existence of God, too, rather than believe in his only begotten Son. The Bible describes the incredulity of these scientists and naturalists at the gospel, saying And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. (Acts 17:32) Nonetheless, at least one Areopagite, one woman, and those with them, believed. (Acts 17:33-34)Perhaps some of you will likewise hearken to the gospel and believe in the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ. Perhaps you too will repent and confess to God that you are a sinner without hope except by the blood of Jesus.

You wanted to know what Christians think so I’m carefully supplying your answer in four parts. The only apparent reason that any of you think I’m off topic is because I’m answering according to what I believe — which is the purpose of your request for an answer in the first place, is it not — and not according to what you may wish that I would say? Don’t you all really want to know what I believe? After all, you wouldn’t have set up a straw man so that you could shoot down my answer before I dared to finish giving one, did you? perhaps to declare yourselves the victors? My recommendation is that you patiently wait for my complete answer, since I’m going to give it, and then answer it accordingly. I think you understand, however, that I have faith in God and not in non-Christian interpretations of his Creation.I fully understand that you may reply that my belief has nothing to do with the facts. This is perfectly acceptable to me because God’s Creation has nothing to do with your faith in nature. The point of my answer is not to argue belief systems because our relative beliefs are mutually exclusive and belief in God is superior to belief in a hypothesis. What I’m relating are Biblical truths that are apparently not well understood by you. It certainly matters to your soul whether you believe these things or not but at the very least you ought to be familiar with the Bible because it’s our reference point as Origin of the Species may be yours. Yes, I’m evangelistic in my answers since I should be reprobate if I was not. You certainly preach your religion at us. I’ve enjoyed the small comments made by a few in relation to the Bible, and particularly what real Christians believe, but no one has yet refuted the references I’ve given and I don’t expect anyone will. I’m certainly concerned for the souls of everyone on this board, including those that may question their having one, but I’m particularly oriented toward those that claim to be Christians since God requires them to believe Genesis if in fact they are children of God. If I have done anything, I hope that my explanation of the Bible will help these to question their relationship with God. All I can do is point to Christ, they must pray to him for guidance themselves.I have a rough idea of evolutionary thought but I haven’t studied it in a long time. I’ve been catching up on the newest fads so that after I answer you with my four-part answer I can then ask my own questions of you. I’m particularly interested in Hawking’s theory as well as the various attempts to unravel DNA. I think these two areas alone are your Achilles heel since so much rests on them being correct. I’ve taken for my tack the premise that both could be true. From there I am examining their relative merits, as I understand them, particularly their underlying assumptions. My purpose is to provide adequate evidence that they are at least tenuous, according to your own logic, since, short of God’s gift of faith, you will never believe Genesis. I have enjoyed the exercise so far and look forward to your answers later. I hope this answers your questioning of my method.