Creation and Evolution

by John Fok

1. INTRODUCTION

The believer will possibly find that evolution is a problem challenging to his faith. It will be our task in this chapter to provide a good biblical apologetic as a response to those who proclaim this incorrect world view, which is contrary to the biblical position.

This chapter, divided into three major divisions, is a brief consideration of evolution:

1. we want to provide a definition of and the assessment of evolution;
2. we will treat some of the so-called proofs for evolution, and provide an answer to them; and
3. we will examine the possibilities for a biblical view of living forms.

1.1 Definition of Evolution

A brief consideration of organic evolution involves the theory that billions of years ago, lifeless matter, acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to one or more minute living forms. Since then, these small forms have evolved into all living and extinct plants and animals, including mankind.

1.2 Explanation of Evolution

As we saw already, two major factors contributed to turning optimistic humanism into a humanism that became negative and destructive:

1. the first was Marx's emphasis on materialism; and
2. the second was evolution as refined in Darwin's book, Origin of the Species (1859, p.141).

Darwin taught that over hundreds of thousands of generations, slight variations from the preceding generation continued to multiply into the formation of new varieties of life forms. The process was also the survival of the fittest (Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903), which meant that only those life forms who had characteristics to compete more successfully could survive in the struggle with the environment. If not, they tended to die off. Therefore, the lower and simpler life forms gradually became more advanced and complex, until finally we reach mankind, the peak at this point of biological development. He is the most able to cope with the environment of today, but no guarantee is offered that higher life forms will not develop.

2. ASSESSMENT OF EVOLUTION

2.1 A Philosophy

A distinctive philosophy undergirds evolution. It is contrary to, and completely rejects the biblical record, which declares that each of the life forms were created by God immediately (each specific kind created by God), and separately (each kind is distinct from any other kind). Darwin's suggestion was mechanistic: life started with minute life forms, as the result of the interaction of certain chemicals. Darwin's proposal, therefore, must be seen as a presupposition, because there is no scientific base to test this claim.

Once this original presupposition is accepted, the rest follows on the basis that natural selection explains the development of life. Such a presupposition and conclusion must be viewed as a philosophy. The biblical view of creation is also a philosophy, based on its presuppositions (see chapter 2). We obviously have presuppositions which are sharply opposed to each other. However, the issues of, and conclusions by the two systems, Creationism and Evolution, will have to be tested by the current scientific data. In that way, we can determine which presuppositions can best answer all the questions we face.

Examining scientific evidence is an appeal to the use of common ground. When a scientist is not willing to accept evidence which is contrary to evolution, then, as believers, we have to continue to proclaim the presuppositions which uphold the creationist position and use the scientific evidence which supports it.

Was Darwin an atheist? In his youth he had studied for the ministry, but eventually that gave way to his scientific pursuits. He was "compelled to look to a First Cause" when he thought of the universe, and therefore felt he was a theist. But his science caused him to disregard any idea that man could come from any source other than life forms from below.

2.2 Replacement of Darwin

(For further information, please read Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicage: Moody Press, 1974, rev. ed., pp.189-195.)

2.2.1 Genetics

Across the decades, since Darwin first proposed his theory, there has been a breakdown in his assertions. Natural selection seems to run contrary to the evidence that has been gathered by the science of heredity (genetics). The great range of variation in life forms called for by natural selection is actually quite limited.

The experiments of Mendel (1822-1882), working with peas and roses, demonstrated that depending on which genes are dominant or recessive, the third generation from an original pair will reflect a predictable ratio:

1. 50 percent will retain the characteristics of the immediate parents;
2. 25 percent will have the characteristics of the grandparents; and
3. the remaining 25 percent will retain characteristics of previous generations beyond the grandparents.

But do different looking peas and roses mean the development of new species? None whatsoever (see Morris, Boardman, and Koontz, Science and Creation - A Handbook for Teachers, San Diego: Creation Science Research Center, 1971, p.37).

2.2.2 Embryology

The science of embryology has also proven Darwin's argument false. Does the development of a fetus in the womb repeat its entire evolutionary past, starting from very early forms of life, progressing to the experience of the fish, and finally reflecting the pattern of development of mammals until, when the embryo is born, it becomes a human being? No. Instead, the parts of the human body, even the embryo, fit together in accordance with a predetermined genetic pattern called DNA. DNA includes a very precise mathematical formula of genes and chromosomes that determines what the baby will look like when it is born. We shall say more about this DNA count later.

2.2.3 Development leads to advantages?

Natural selection also rests heavily on the claim that when an animal is in the process of development, it will enjoy some specific advantage over its competitors. In the example most often used, tadpoles learn how to care for themselves as they swim about and feed, and are able to avoid their enemies much better than their ancestors.

But, when the tadpole becomes a frog, according to evolution, in what sense did the transition enable the frog to have a better chance to survive attacks upon it? Are frogs better able to survive than tadpoles or other marine life?

2.2.4 No transitional links

Darwin thought that across the centuries, with additional biological and geological research, the evidence of transitional links would be uncovered, substantiating the gaps between diverse life forms. But no viable evidence for links have come to light. There is an "entire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals ... between backboned animals and (invertebrates), the mollusks and the anthropods .... If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or, in other words, that these major groups have, from the very first, borne the same relationship to each other that they have today" (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, London: Williams and Wilkens, 1930). For this and a number of other reasons, Darwin's theory of natural selection has broken down (see Morris, Boardman, and Koontz, op. cit., pp.19, 27, 36, 38).

2.3 Emergent Evolution

Most evolutionists today have abandoned Darwin's notion of gradual changes. Instead, they think in terms of emergent evolution which takes place suddenly, or because the change is so radical, it is difficult to explain. But this suggestion becomes troublesome to verify today by the scientific method, based on the latest research with the genetic study of the DNA code (see below the discussion on the proof of evolution based on genetics).

Furthermore, the proposal of sudden appearance of new life forms, based on mere chance, must be viewed as a presupposition which is not provable. Yet, in some quarters, emergent evolution is presented as a view which has already been established as truth. Once again, however, we have the clash of presuppositions of the two systems:

1. Creationism; and
2. Evolution.

But if the emergent evolutionist will not consider evidence suggested by DNA research in genetics, the believer, especially if he is a scientist, must continue to uphold the biblical presuppositions as well as continue to build evidence from science to uphold the biblical position for Creationism.

3. THE SO-CALLED "PROOFS" OF EVOLUTION

(see Morris, Boardman, and Koontz, op. cit., p.44)

3.1 Proof From Classification

3.1.1 The evolutionist's position

All animals can be classified in a fairly graded system, from the most simple structures to the most complex. That, the evolutionist would say, is proof that the highest forms of life evolved from the lowest forms.

3.1.2 Reply

There is a fallacy in such an argumentation. To arrange all life forms in a so-called "family tree" to demonstrate evolutional development means that basic presuppositions were adopted for such an argument. But we also see the circular reasoning: all the animals are arranged into a family tree according to evolutionary development, but then evolutionists declare that the family tree proves evolution.

In addition, if transitional links cannot be established between life forms in an ascending development (see Clark above), then how can a family tree be proposed which requires that these links be a fact?

3.2 Proof From Comparative Anatomy

3.2.1 The evolutionist's position

Man and animals exhibit a close similarity by comparison. Bone-for-bone, muscle-for-muscle, nerve-for-nerve, man bears a remarkable resemblance to the higher primates. Supposedly, this is a proof for a strong tie between the two life forms, and therefore there must have been an evolution movement upward from some primate to man.

3.2.2 Reply

This argumentation also breaks down. The genes and chromosomes of both man and higher primates are not the same for each of them. Even by comparing anatomy, the two do not relate, because a man definitely has two legs and two arms, while primates have four legs.

Besides these definite dissimilarities, there is another reason for the resemblance between man and the animals concerning hearts, liver, lungs, and so on. Life was designed to live in a specific atmosphere here on earth. Lungs take in oxygen and place it in the blood stream, which in turn provides this life-giving chemical for the body cells. This happens for a man or any other animal. Similarly, stomachs and other organs were designed to digest food with certain acids and enzymes so the cells of the body can be nourished. The same is true for other organs of the body. While form and body organs appear similar among the higher life forms, yet they were designed by a wise Creator to live together on earth, using food and air in a common experience. Therefore, resemblance is not the proof of evolution!

3.3 Proof From Paleontology

3.3.1 The evolutionist's position

In the earth's crust are rock layers, each requiring millions of years to be formed. The time necessary for their formation is determined by the present rate of continental uplift and erosion. During the immense eons of time which elapsed while these horizontal layers were being formed, living things were evolving upon the earth. Each of them left their record of evolution in the various layers of soil. Fossils of the simplest forms of life appear in the lower strata, while in the upper or more recently deposited levels are fossils of more complex and advanced forms.

3.3.2 Reply

We know from observation of fossils in the rock layers that simple forms of life are not confined only to the lower levels. These life forms are found in every rock layers, suggesting that simple life forms have existed from the beginning until the present.

The fossil record shows that life appeared suddenly in what is known as the Cambrian layer. The evolutionist will explain its appearance on the basis already described at the beginning of this chapter, in the definition.

The "Impact" article 95 of May 1981 of the Institute of Creation Research, San Diego, California, states definitely, "Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record, and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds. These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. Furthermore, the laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from non-life, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable" (by Dwayne D. Gish and Richard Bliss).

The missing links are, again, a real problem. Scientists have had plenty of opportunity to search for these transitional links between life forms in the evolutionary development, but to be perfectly honest, they have never yet been discovered. In the 1930s, Austin Clark, of the United States National Museum, who was not a creationist, stirred up a furor when he made the announcement concerning the existence of gaps between the basic life forms. Referring again to the same Impact article above, "Systematic gaps do occur between kinds in the fossil record .... While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links ... have been rendered questionable by more detailed data."

3.4 Proof From Genetics

3.4.1 The evolutionist's position

New forms of plants and animals have supposedly been seen to arise suddenly in nature, suggesting the emergent evolution, or sudden changes whereby new life forms have appeared.

3.4.2 Reply

While we have already touched on the genetic problem, we need to mention briefly the research work with the DNA count of chromosomes in cells.

In the "Impact" article 92, page 2, Dr. John W. Oller, Jr., stated that "even as early as 1963 and 1964, Hinegardner and Engelberg published arguments in Science, showing the extreme implausibility of the claim that the genetic basis of life had evolved in a step-by-step fashion. The difficulty was that the minutest sort of changes in ... the nucleic acids and the words of the protein language in the genetic code would be lethal (i.e. poisonous) to all living things. Because of the apparent universality of the code, very minute changes in the code would have devastating effects to all living organisms. This may be why F.H.C. Crick (who shared the Nobel Prize with J.D. Watson for work on the structure of DNA, the genetic code), commented ... there are far too many who are willing to offer untestable, unscientific claims about how the code came to be."

DNA research is one of the latest arguments demonstrating the impossibility that any new life forms could be established by chance. The laws of Mendel still govern the variations and possibilities afforded by genes and chromosomes within each life form. It bears repeating that in no way does DNA research demonstrate the possibility of going from one life form to a higher one in any sudden change.

3.5 Theistic Evolution

There are evangelicals who will hold to a kind of evolution, but upon a theistic basis:

1. they do not believe that matter is eternal, but was created by God; and
2. life was initiated by God, then at certain points the personal Creator guided the mechanism of the evolutionary process.

Trying to be respectable as a Christian by giving credence to an ongoing scientific research has a serious problem. The danger might be to yield too much to scientific pronouncement and research, and ignore what the Bible says. The Bible is not a textbook on science, but when it speaks on scientific issues, we need to pay careful attention to the biblical claims.

For example, the Bible is very clear that God created each life form "after its own kind," a phrase repeated ten times in Genesis 1. We recognize that the Bible speaks in the ordinary language of men, but the phrase definitely declares that each life form was an immediate creation, and not the product of an evolutionary process from one life form to the higher one, "guided by God."

Science, even a naturalistic one, has contributed greatly to making this world a better place to live. Yet, as we considered the so-called "double revelation theory" in chapter 5, we saw that when scientists deny a biblical statement on a particular scientific issue, we need to be on guard. The danger of a theistic evolution position is that the believer will give up too much, and go beyond what Scripture itself says on the creation of original life forms. Due to the above reasons, Theistic Evolution must be repudiated by all genuine Christians.

4. A BIBLICAL VIEW OF LIVING FORMS

While the contributions of the biologist Fred Marsh were offered during the 1940s, they are still meaningful for today. After years of mating various animals and crossing plant forms in his laboratory, he finally stated: "Any organisms, however diverse in their outward details, which are capable of accomplishing true fertilization, even though the ensuing development ceases at an early state, are members of the same baramin (life form)" (Fred Marsh, Evolution, Creation, and Science, Washingtion: Review' and Herald Publishing Association, 1947, p.181).

Marsh declared that foreign sperms cannot accomplish fertilization, because of a chemical incompatibility with the egg. We have already noted this phenomenon in regard to the DNA code. For example, rats and mice can be crossed, and there will be a fetus. Even though the fetus does not reach maturation or birth, it is evident that rats and mice do belong to the same kind. Similarly, sheep and goats can be mated, as well as buffalo and cattle, showing that these are similar life forms.

Marsh has provided a diagram demonstrating three life forms in connection with his basic work (p. 179, see also Dr. Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961, p.67). There are man, horse, and dog kinds. Concerning man, we note that he is a monotypic kind. Men everywhere have the same gene and chromosome counts. The possible variations within mankind only show the Creator's ingenuity in designing the different skin colors, hair, eye slants, body structures, walk, and so on. But no matter where one goes, man is still man.

The horse kind includes the horse and donkey, who are duotypic. While there are variations in the gene count, their ability to mate and produce the mule indicates that the horse and donkey belong to the same kind. Similarly, the dog variety includes the dog, fox and hyena, each with a different variation of genes. However, as these animals mate to produce all the different possibilities of dogs, foxes, wolves, coyotes, and jackals, the conclusion is that all of these animals belong to the same kind.

Once more, we have an excellent argument which substantiates what the biblical record declares. In no way do we see the possibility of one kind crossing to another one. The DNA cell arrangement simply cannot permit it.

5. DO SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE AGREE?

"Do science and Scripture agree?" Some say there is conflict. Most of the apparent conflict stems from making the Bible say things it really does not say and from scientism, a philosophic interpretation of scientific facts. These interpretations are distinct from the facts themselves.

5.1 A Scientist May Speak Something Which Are Outside His Field

When a scientist speaks on any subject, he is likely to be believed. A scientist may be speaking outside his field, but the same respect that should rightfully be given to his statements from within his field are almost unconsciously transferred to everything he says. For instance, Carl Sagan, well-known author and professor of astronomy at Cornell University, illustrates this crossover from science to "scientism." U.S. News and World Report interviewed him on the subject of science and religion! Science is his field; religion certainly is not! However, he makes bold religious pronouncements, "The cosoms is all that is or ever was or ever will be;" "Whatever significance we humans have is that which we make ourselves"; and "If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to worship the sun and the stars?" This raises the question as to why we would worship nature if it is, as he states, "the result of blind chance and part of a pointless process"?

5.2 Faith is Suspect

Another area in which conflict has arisen is on the question of whether those things which cannot be verified by the scientific method are valid and real. Some people consciously, and others unconsciously, assume that if a statement cannot be proved in a laboratory by the methods of natural science, it is untrustworthy and cannot be accepted as reliable.

But there are ways and means other than the laboratory to acquire real and genuine knowledge. Consider the process of falling in love. This surely is not done in a laboratory, with a battery of instruments, but anyone who has ever experienced it would be the last to admit that his knowledge of love is uncertain or unreal. We have seen that the scientific method is valid only for those realities which are measurable in physical terms. God is a different kind of reality from the world of nature which science examines. God does not await someone's empirical investigation; he is a personal being who has revealed himself in love and can be known in personal presence.

5.3 Science is Only One Way to Truth

Christians, then, believe that science is one avenue to the discovery of truth about physical things, but that there are other non-material realities and other means of attaining truth. A Christian exercises faith and has presuppositions, as does a scientist, and in this he sees nothing incompatible with reason or intelligence. It is apparent that there are many Christians who are scientists. They do not consider themselves intellectual schizophrenics, but rather view themselves as following in the footsteps of the Christian founders of modern science.

It should further be recognized that science is incapable of making value judgments about the things it measures. Many people on the frontiers of science are realizing that there is nothing inherent in science to guide them in the application of the discoveries they make. There is nothing in science itself which will determine whether nuclear energy will be used to destroy cities or destroy cancer. This is a judgment outside the scientific method to determine.

Further, science can tell us how something works but not why it works that way. Whether there is any purpose in the universe can never be answered for us by science. The Bible does not purport to tell us the how of many things, but it clearly gives us the why.

This is not to say that when the Scriptures refer to matters of science and history they are inaccurate, but rather to point out that the Scriptures have a different focus of attention.

5.4 Is God Necessary?

Humility, then, is a valuable virtue for a non-Christian scientist and for a Christian, be he scientist or not. Incalculable harm has been done by the use of argument by ridicule. A sarcastic remark is always good for a long, loud laugh from some of the faithful, but invariably it loses the thoughful person, wavering in his conviction, and the timid unbeliever making his first tentative investigation.

Some have erroneously thought that God was necessary to explain areas of life and existence for which at the moment there was no other explanation. Unbelieveing scientists say, "Give us enough time," "and humans will be able to explain how everything in the universe works."

Those who adopt this point of view forget that God is not only Creator, but also Sustainer. "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17). The universe would fall apart without His sustaining power. Even if people understand everything, they will still need God. Knowing how the universe is sustained is not the same thing as sustaining it.

For instance, there are striking new advances today in the field of Genetic Engineering. DNA, the key chemical that manages heredity, has been produced in a laboratory, and scientists are projecting undreamed-of possibilities. What does all this mean to the Christian? Will God somehow be torn from His throne? In fact, the exact opposite is the case. The advances of science have only emphasized that life did not come by blind chance, but by an intelligent mind, as the result of prodigious thought and work under the most rigidly controlled conditions. Recent discoveries would argue for theism rather than the opposite. And we still must account for the elements scientists used to produce life. Where did they come from? Could they have merely evolved? The most logical explanation is that God created these elements.

5.5 Animal Ancestors?

When Christians consider the origin of human beings, they must hold to two non-negotiables:

1. God supernaturally and deliberately created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1); and
2. God supernaturally and deliberately created the first man and the first woman (Genesis 1:27).

The Genesis account tells us God made Adam and then made Eve from Adam's side, both "made in God's image." When God breathed into Adam the breath of life, that set him apart from anything else God had made. This was a first! It also rules out the possibility suggested by some that people evolved from any animal ancestor.

It is helpful to read the New Testament references that confirm Adam and Eve as historic (Romans 5:12, 14; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; 1 John 3:12; Jude 11). A careful understanding of these passages leaves no room for the possibility that the Genesis story is an allegory.

5.6 A Constantly Moving Train

Scientific theory is a matter of the highest degree of probability based on the data available. There are no absolutes in it. Furthermore, science is a train that is constantly moving. Yesterday's generalization is today's discarded hypothesis. It is dangerous to try to prove the Bible by science. If the Bible becomes wedded to today's scientific theories, what will happen to it when science, 10 years from now, has shifted?

5.7 Some People Accepted Teachings Which They Did Not Personally Investigate or Fully Understand

G.A. Kerkut, an evolutionist, points out that many present-day undergraduates have succumbed to the unthinking tendencies in their studies in general, and in accepting evolution in biology in particular (for further information, please read G.A. Kerkut, The Implications of Evolution, London: Pergamon Press, 1960, p.3, 20). He writes:

For some years now I have tutored undergraduates on various aspects of biology. It is quite common, during the course of conversation, to ask the student if he knows the evidence for evolution. This usually evokes a faintly superior smile ...

"Well, sir, there is the evidence from Paleontology, Comparative Anatomy, Embryology, Systematics and Geographical Distributions," the student would say in a nursery-rhyme jargon ...

"Do you think that the evolutionary theory is the best explanation yet advanced to explain animal inter-relationships?" I would ask.

"Why, of course, sir," would be the reply. "There is nothing else, except for the religious explanation held by some fundamentalist Christians, and I gather, sir, that these views are no longer held by the more up-to-date churchmen."

"So you believe in evolution because there is no other theory?"

"Oh, no, sir, I believe in it because of the evidence I just mentioned."

"Have you read any book on the evidence for evolution?" I would ask.

"Yes, sir." And here he would mention the names of authors of a popular school textbook. "And of course, sir, there is that book by Darwin, The Origin of Species."

"Have you read this book?" I would ask.

"Well, not all through, sir."

"The first 50 pages?"

"Yes, sir, about that much; maybe a bit less."

"I see. And that has given you your firm understanding of evolution?"

"Yes, sir."

"Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favor of the argument, but also the most telling points against it."

"I suppose so, sir."

"Good. Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory of evolution."

"But there isn't any, sir."

Here the conversation would take on a more strained atmosphere. The student would look at me as if I were playing a very unfair game. He would take it rather badly when I suggested that he was not being very scientific in his outlook if he swallowed the latest scientific dogma and, when questioned, just repeated parrot-fashion the views of the current Archbishop of Evolution. In fact he would be behaving like certain of those religious students he affected to despise. He would be taking on faith that he could not intellectually understand and, when questioned, would appeal to authority of a "good book," which in this case was The Origin of Species.

5.7.1 Many widely quoted books are read by title only

It is interesting to note that many of these widely quoted books are read by title only. Three of such that come to mind are:

1. the Holy Bible;
2. the Origin of Species; and
3. the Das Kapital.

I would suggest that the student should go away and read the evidence for and against evolution and present it as an essay. A week would pass and the same student would appear armed with an essay on the evidence for evolution. When the essay had been read and the question concerning the evidence against evolution came up, the student would give a rather pained smile.

"Well, sir, I looked up various books but could not find anything in the scientific books against evolution. I did not think you would want a religious argument."

"No, you were quite correct. I want a scientific argument against evolution."

"Well, sir, there does not seem to be one, and that in itself is a piece of evidence in favor of the evolutionary theory."

I would then indicate to him that the history of evolution was of considerable antiquity, and would mention that he might have looked at the book by Radi, The History of Biological Theories. Having made sure the student had noted the book down for future reference I would proceed as follows:

Before one can decide that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of the present-day range of forms of living material, one should examine all the implications that such a theory may hold. Too often the theory is applied to, say, the development of the horse, and then, because it is held to be applicable there, it is extended to the rest of the animal kingdom with little or no further evidence.

5.7.2 Seven Basic Assumptions of the Theory of Evolution

There are, however, 7 basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first 6 assumptions and consider only the 7th. The 7 assumptions are:

1. Non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. that spontaneous generation occurred.
2. Spontaneous generation occurred only once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all inter-related.
4. The protozoa gave rise to the metazoa.
5. The various invertebrate phyla are inter-related.
6. The invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
7. The vertebrates and fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e., that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock and so on.

For the initial purposes of this discussion on evolution I shall consider that the supporters of the theory of evolution hold that all these 7 assumptions are valid, and that these assumptions form the general theory of evolution.

The first point that I should like to make is that the 7 assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume that a certain series of events has occurred in the past. Thus, though it may be possible to mimic some of these events under present-day conditions, this does not mean that these events must therefore have taken place in the past. All that it shows is that it is possible for such a change to take place. Thus, to change a present-day reptile into a mammal, though of great interest, would not show the way in which the mammals did arise. Unfortunately, we cannot bring about even this change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions.

In summary, we have to remember two important points, they are:

1. The assumption that evolution has been proved without doubt and that anyone with a brain in his head must accept it is false.
2. The theory of evolution is "only a hypothesis," with no valid evidence for it.

5.8 The Lord Jesus Christ is the Real Issue in Salvation

Here we must remember that it is useless to get into a discussion of evolution with a non-Christian. Rather, when the subject comes up, I first ask the evolutionist whether he is concluding from his position that there is no God and that everything happened by chance, or whether he concedes God is the initiator of life. If he accepts, the latter, I confront him directly with the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the real issue in Salvation, not one's view of evolution. When the issue of Christ is settled, other less important ones settle themselves in due course.

5.9 There is No Fundamental Conflict Between Science and Scripture

We reiterate that the so-called conflicts of science and the Bible are often conflicts between interpretations of the facts. The presupposition one brings to the facts, rather than the facts themselves, determines one's conclusion. For instance, one might be told that his wife was seen riding around town with another man. Knowing his wife, he draws a different conclusion from this fact than does the town gossip. The different conclusions result, not from different facts, but from different presuppositions brought to the fact.

In everything we read and in everything we hear we must ask, "What is this person's presupposition?" so that we may interpret conclusions in this light. There is no such thing as total objectivity.

The Christian can never forget that God can act in miraculous ways and in the past He often chose to. The Bible discloses that He was involved in His original creation and continues in a wise and purposeful relationship with it. While there are problems for which there is as yet no explanation, there is no fundamental conflict between science and Scripture.

6. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. Apologetics, Lesson 16, Moody Bible Institute, 1990, by Louis Goldberg.
2. Know Why You Believe, Chapter 9, InterVarsity Press, 1988, by Paul E. Little & Marie Little.
3. The Implications of Evolution, London: Pergamon Press, 1960, p.3, 20 by G.A. Kerkut.