Creation and our salvation
     Of primary concern to the Bible believing Christian is whether an evolutionary view of origins is compatible with GOD's word as revealed in Scripture.
     The Bible speaks of a sovereign, omnipotent and omniscient GOD who created out of nothing (ex nihilo) by the power of His word. Thus, GOD exists outside of nature (literally supernatural) and is the Creator of all temporal things we call nature. GOD Himself, however, is not a created being but rather is uniquely eternal.
     It has been said that whatever we hold to be eternal is our god. Those who deny the existence of an eternal GOD must ultimately declare nature itself to be eternal, and thus nature, in effect, becomes their god. The philosophy that recognizes only the natural world as "real" is called naturalism.
     Christians should be particularly careful how they view Divine Creation because it is foundational to the whole Bible and Christianity. Creation is given a preeminent position in the first chapter of the Bible and is the First Article of belief in the Apostle's Creed (I believe in GOD the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth). Throughout Scripture, the GOD who is real is contrasted with man's false gods by virtue of GOD's sovereign role as Creator.
     Most important, there is an integral relationship between Creation and our salvation. The first three or so pages of the Bible reveal both man's accountability to GOD through His Creation and man's subsequent fall into sin and death through his disobedience. All the remaining pages (about 1,500 in a typical Bible) deal directly or indirectly with GOD's solution to man's sin-problem documented in the first three pages. It should come as no surprise, then, that those who deny human sin and accountability would also seek to deny GOD as their sovereign Creator. Sadly, like Adam and Eve, they try to hide from the very GOD who could save them.
     Still, some Christians have argued that how GOD created is not that important as long as we credit Him with at least some nonspecific role in the process. They insist that the Bible tells us merely Who created while science (or, more accurately, naturalistic scientism) tells us how. After all, they ask, couldn't GOD have used the process of evolution to create?
     But "Divine Darwinism" inevitably leads to either espousing evolution with miracles or creation without miracles. As we shall see, the former is incompatible with Darwinism, while the latter is incompatible with Scripture.

The question of origins
     When it comes to the ultimate origin of nature and living things, many contemporary scientists insist that we must ignore even the possibility of intelligent design and confine ourselves to purely naturalistic explanations. To the consistent evolutionist, none of the obvious complexities of living things can be considered as evidence for purpose or design.
     The denial of the manifest evidence of the handiwork of GOD in nature is in direct contradiction to the Biblical claim that nature reveals the glory of GOD. The Scriptures say that GOD's "invisible qualities ... have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). Indeed, Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans that this visible evidence of GOD's eternal power and majesty in nature is so obvious that man can deny it only by "suppressing the truth."
     Many Christians accept the view that science must never appeal to the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. This axiom would seem reasonable if we were speaking of ongoing phenomena that are subject to study by empirical science. Certainly, a scientist can understand something of the structure and function of, say, the human eye in purely physical-chemical terms without considering metaphysical or supernatural principles. The eye, like a camera, appears to be an optical device (though a profoundly complex one) that obeys the fundamental laws and physical properties of nature.
     However, just because an existing biological system (such as the eye), like an existing manmade machine, can be understood in mechanistic terms, it does not necessarily follow that the origin of that system can also be understood in that way. How, for example, would one explain the origin of a modern automatic camera in purely naturalistic terms?. Nothing we know about the physical composition of a camera could cause its spontaneous self-assembly with time. Sophisticated cameras come into existence only when intelligent designers and builders impose their design and work on the raw material from which the camera is made. Surely we can assume no less for a vastly more complex optical device like the eye.
     It is further argued that science must never consider the supernatural (even for origins) because to do so suppresses further inquiry and is thus fatal to the advancement of science. Some evolutionists go so far as to insist that Biblical Christianity (and particularly the doctrine of creation) would, if widely accepted, mean the end of all modern science and its benefits. This serious

accusation bears our further investigation.
 
The origin of life
     Darwin assumed that life itself evolved by chance from simple chemicals in some "warm little pond," but he was unable to provide any specifics. To this day, an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life has proven to be so elusive to rational speculation that many evolutionists now insist it is not even a part of the theory of evolution. In what has become a well-known analogy, the prominent evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle has concluded that the formation of a living organism by chance would be comparable to "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard [and assembling] a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
     Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA), in his book Life Itself, concedes that the improbability of life's chance origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, said: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."
 
The evidence for Creation
     Evolutionists often challenge Creationists to come up with their own scientific explanation for origins. The only explanation the evolutionist will accept, however, is a materialistic one. Since the act of Creation was clearly a miraculous event, there can be no materialistic explanation. Whether or not we find the evidence for Creation compelling depends on our willingness to accept the Biblical revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient GOD.
     As we've noted, many scientists have great difficulty accepting the idea that some things may not have a natural explanation. They do not seem to fear the unknown so much as the unknowable. This threatens the pride and sovereignty of natural man, who from the time of the Fall wishes to be as gods, deciding for himself what is right and wrong.
     Most of the scientific argument for Creation involves the overwhelming evidence for intelligent design in nature, while demonstrating the utter failure of evolutionary explanations that appeal to chance. We usually have no trouble detecting evidence for intelligent design in a structure (Stonehenge, for example), even if we do not exactly know its builder or purpose.
     Let's briefly consider three evidences for special Creation.
     (1) Intelligent design: The Bible reminds us of the obvious fact that an intelligent designer and builder is necessary for building anything that is complex, "for every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is GOD" (Heb. 3:4).
     Modern biology has found living things to be far more complex than Darwin could have imagined in his

day. The human brain, for example, consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light-sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains more than 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are processed and sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the marvelous sensation we call vision.
     The signal-processing ability of the cells in the retina greatly exceeds the computational power of our most sophisticated supercomputers. It has been estimated that in one one-hundredth of a second, the signal processing of a single photoreceptor cell from the retina requires the solution of approximately 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times! Considering that there are more than 10 million such cells interacting in complex ways in the retina, it would take nearly 100 years for the fastest Cray supercomputer to simulate what takes place in our eye many times every second!
     (2) All life reproduces after its kind: The Bible tells us that following its original creation, each animal continued to reproduce after its kind (the Hebrew word for kind is min). "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind; and it was so" (Gen. 1:24).
     This would seem to leave little room for evolution unless the Genesis kind might have represented a higher taxonomic group, like perhaps a class or order. In an effort to accommodate at least some evolution in Creation, it has been proposed that GOD might have created, for example, a single bird kind from which all the species of birds alive today have evolved. Levitical law, however, defines kind much more narrowly than this. A long list of birds, including the falcon, raven, ostrich, short-eared owl, screech owl, white owl, carrion vulture, stork and heron are each described as being a kind (Lev. 11: 14-19).
 
Classical Darwinism
     Wisely skipping over the most difficult step in evolution, the origin of life, Darwin was primarily interested in how the various plant and animal species came into existence. He proposed four postulates that still constitute the central dogma of evolutionism.
     First, he proposed that the variation he observed among the individuals of a species was unlimited. Second, he proposed that more animals of a species are born than can possibly survive, given limited resources, and that this results in a struggle for survival. Third, he proposed that only those animals survive who happen by chance to be the most fit - a process called "natural selection." Finally, he proposed that those organisms that acquire characteristics that permit them to survive in their struggle with the less fit, would pass those

characteristics on to their offspring.
     Darwin's only observable evidence for "evolution in action" was the great variation that occurs among the individuals of a species. He was especially impressed by the seemingly endless range of variation produced by animals under domestication such as pigeons and dogs. He reasoned that if breeders could produce such a range of variation by selecting for desired traits, nature in time could accomplish even more through "natural selection."
     Darwin, who knew nothing of genetics, erroneously assumed that there was virtually no limit to this variation among the individuals of a species.
     Today, evolutionists like to refer to the sort of variation we see among individuals of a species as microevolution, implying that this is somehow related to the chance formation of fundamentally new animals by a process known as macroevolution. Most evolutionists, however, concede that there is no known relationship between so-called microevolution and macroevolution. Even so, most biology textbooks continue to extrapolate the observable but limited variation among the individuals of a species into the unobservable evolution of fundamentally new animals.
     Consider the remarkable species canis familiaris, which includes the nearly 150 varieties of dogs recognized by the American Kennel Club. It is amazing that animals as different as a 125 pound Great Dane and a 3-pound Chihuahua are at least potentially able to interbreed and are members of the same species! Still, there are limits to what can be achieved by even dog breeders. They can breed for long legs and short legs (within limits), but they cannot breed for flying dogs with wings. The reason for this is that there are no genes in the gene pool of the species canis familiaris that could produce wings or any of the other countless modifications necessary for flight. For this, the evolutionist must look in vain to mutations.
 
Faith in random mutations
     The marvelous ability of all living things to reproduce themselves after their kind is one of the most distinctive properties of life. This reproductive ability depends in part on a vast collection of precise genetic instructions called genes that reside in every cell of each living organism. It is believed that these genes provide encoded instructions necessary not only for the assembly and function of each cell, but also for all the proteins, tissues and organs of the entire body. A complete set of these genes (about 100,000 in humans) is stored in the chromosomes, inside the nucleus of each of the 30 trillion cells that make up our bodies.
     The survival of every living species depends on its ability to pass on its precious genetic instructions, from cell to cell and generation to generation, without significant alteration. It is no more likely that the cells of

our body might benefit from random changes in their genetic information than our TV sets might benefit from random changes in their circuitry. If a species is to survive, its genetic information must be both duplicated and maintained with great precision. Toward this end, living cells have several errorchecking mechanisms that help to ensure the accuracy of their gene duplication. Even so, genetic errors still can occur in cells. We call the random errors that creep into the genetic instructions of a cell, mutations.
     Mutations are caused by certain kinds of chemicals, viruses and radiations. Ultraviolet light from the sun, for example, can cause mutations in our skin, resulting in skin cancer. Cancer is so closely associated with mutations that the terms carcinogenic (cancer causing) and mutagenic (mutation causing) are essentially synonymous. Nonetheless, evolutionists insist that some mutations are beneficial and lead to the gradual improvement of a species.
     While there are special classes of highly controlled "mutations" that appear to be useful and part of the normal operation of cells, there are very few examples of unquestionably beneficial random mutations. Ironically, the primary textbook example of a "good" mutation is one that causes the disease sickle-cell anemia. This mutation of blood hemoglobin is considered "good" because people who have it (and survive it)! are more resistant to malaria. The symptoms of this "good" mutation include acute attacks of abdominal and joint pain, ulcers on the legs, defective red blood cells, and severe anemia, often leading to death. One can only imagine what the bad mutations are like!
     Evolutionists admit that mutations arising both in the laboratory and in natural populations typically produce deterioration, disease and monstrosities, yet their faith in random mutation as the ultimate source of all genetic information remains undiminished.
 
The fossil record
     Since evolution is believed to occur far too slowly to be discernible in the timeframe of human observers, fossils must be used to provide the historical evidence whether life has in fact evolved from simple to more complex forms.
     Fossilization typically occurs when organisms (either living or dead) are deposited from water into sediment. In some instances, the sediment solidifies, making a cast of the entombed organism. In others, the organic material of the organism itself is replaced by mineral to form a stony replica.
     Conditions must be perfect for fossilization to occur, which explains why there is so little evidence of fossils being formed today. Both the burial of the organism in sediment and its subsequent hardening must occur quickly lest the decay process destroy the organism before it is fossilized. Most fossils do indeed give