Outline Of Contents:
    Chapter 1 - Roots of Modern Science     15 (The Basis of Modern Science, The Shift toward Naturalism, etc.)
    Chapter 2 - Fact, Faith, and Logic: An Organized Approach     23 (Assumptions in Science, Philosophical Roots, etc.)
    Chapter 3 - Evidence and Experts    37 (Limitations of Science, Human factors, A Search for Truth, Redefining Science, etc)
    Chapter 4 - Evidence vs. Evolution    61 (Fossil Record, Genetics, Origin of Life, Design, etc.)
    Chapter 5 - Source of Conflict:  The Bible on Science    73 (Autonomous, Dependent, Science Redefined, etc.)
-------------- (information from the below chapters to be added later)
   Chapter 6 - Truth and Consequences    91
    Chapter 7 - Theology and Science    119
    Chapter 8 - Creation: A Solid Foundation
    Chapter 9 - God, Creation, and Man    147
    Chapter 10 - The Early Earth    181
    Chapter 11 - The Flood and Earth History    207
    Chapter 12 - Age of the Earth    227
    Chapter 13 - A Christian Response

Chapter 1 - Roots of Modern Science:
p1    Historically, most of the highly productive early modern scientists (e.g., Boyle, Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur) believed in creation. ... A majority of present-day scientists believe in evolution. ... this shift in belief was associated with a change in world view rather than new scientific discoveries.

The Basis of Modern Science:
          The rise of modern science began only a few hundred years ago.  ... this rise was associated with Christianity
p16    ... the predominant forms of scientific activity during England's Puritan decades can be shown to be a direct outgrowth of a Puritan ideology.
    Why did modern science start from a culture with a Christian base?  ... A proper philosophical base for investigating the universe was needed and the Christian doctrine of creation provided that base.  The Creator established laws for people and laws for the natural world.  A created universe was expected to have design, order, and purpose.
    Man, using his created rational mind, could study this ordered universe in a rational way and seek to discover its laws; and modern science is based on the assumption of scientific law.  In addition, moral laws given by the Creator established the ethical base for science.  Scientist must be honest and truthful.

p17    ... early modern science was started by those who lived in the consensus and setting of Christianity.  ... J. Robert Oppenheimer ... understood this.  He has said that Christianity was needed to give birth to modern science ["On Science and Culture", Encounter, Oct. 1962]
    Christianity was necessary for the beginning of modern science for the simple reason that Christianity created a climate of thought which put men in a position to investigate the form of the universe ... The early scientists also shared the outlook of Christianity in believing that there is a reasonable God, who has created a reasonable universe, and thus man, by use of his reason, could find out the universe's form.
    Thus Christianity, with its doctrine of creation, provided a firm philosophical foundation for scientifically investigating the universe.  This explains why so many of the early scientists were Christians.  It also explains why science did not develop in the Eastern countries with their materialist philosophies and pantheistic religions.  They simply did not have the proper philosophical base.  In fact, modern science would probably not have arisen at all had it not been for the Christian base.
    Creation is the foundation on which modern science began.  As creationists, the early scientists could approach their study of nature with enthusiasm.  They could expect positive results from their study of science because they believed the natural world to be one of law and order, and they believed that using their rational minds they could search for that order and find those laws.
    Not only did the early scientists expect to find the laws of nature, they ran up a very impressive record of discovering those laws.
p18    Names of  productive early scientists easily come to mind.  ... Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) astronomy, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) barometer, Robert Boyle (1627-1691) gas laws, Michael Faraday (1791-1869) electric generator, and Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) vaccination and immunization.
    These scientists are among those whose discoveries are still recognized as major attainments in science.  They also upheld and respected the Scriptures. ... The undeniable fact remains, ... that science only originated in a culture that had accepted the Christian doctrine of creation.
    Even more convincing is the fact that these early scientists themselves stated in their writings that their enthusiasm for science was a direct result of their belief in creation.  They were motivated by the belief that the universe, the world, and life came into being by direct acts of the Creator and that by studying and learning about the universe, they could reflect glory back to the Creator and be productive as scientists.  Early modern scientists believed that the universe had a supernatural origin, rather than a naturalistic one.

The Shift toward Naturalism:
    In our day, however, the situation is quite different from that of the early days of science.  Now most scientists (but by no means all) believe in some form of evolution.  They no longer believe that life arose by direct supernatural acts of a Creator.  Now naturalistic philosophy reigns.
    What were the causes of this change?  ... it was not the discovery of new scientific information.  ...

p19    The change came about as a result of a shift in the philosophy used by scientists, a shift toward antisupernaturalism.  The idea of direct acts of creation was rejected in favor of an explanation of origins from a naturalistic point of view using only the laws of chemistry and physics.  Nothing supernatural was involved in the new explanation.  This trend was also accompanied by a general decline in "religious" faith.

Charles Darwin and Religion:
    Charles Darwin himself experienced such a religious decline.  "There are some who think that Darwin accepted the theory of evolution only after many, many years of studying the subject.  This, however, is not the case.  As his religious faith ebbed his faith in evolution developed.  It came in to fill up the void that was being left by his rejection of creation. (Robert Clark & James D. Bales;  Why Scientists Accept Evolution; Grand rapids:  Baker Book House, 1966; pp 35)
    It wasn't that evolution was such an attractive theory, one that provided a better interpretation of scientific fact.  Rather it was all that was left to fill the void created by his rejection of the alternative of special creation.
    Darwin's move away from creation was not just a passive rejection of one philosophy and acceptance of a new one.  Instead, he actively tried to fight the creation view and  those who held it. ...
    Although Darwin's name is associated with the popularization of evolution, he was not the first one nor the only one of him time to reject supernatural creation.  A general move away from supernatural creation had begun many years earlier in the culture at large, with theologians and philosophers leading the way.  Some leading theologians were more ready to accept evolution than were scientists.
p20    Scientist themselves were somewhat slow to accept evolution since scientific facts did not seem to support it (as even Darwin himself noted).  Evidence from the fossil record was particularly lacking, a fact which bothered Darwin greatly.  He was also troubled by the abundant evidence of design in nature, the eye being a prime example.
    The facts of science were not what led to a rejection of crfeation and acceptance of evolution.  Rather, what led to that rejection was a change in philosophy or theology;  it was a change from one world view to an opposing one.
    ... Many people in our day, however, are unaware that evolution was adopted for philosophical rather than scientific reasons.  Darwinism was readily accepted because a shift had taken place in people's thinking.  There was a desire for a naturalistic explanation for origins that would avoid supernatural creation - and Darwinism filled the bill.
    Evolution is a belief system, and the philosophical climate was right for its acceptance.  Creation implies responsibility to a creator, a responsibility people wished to avoid.
    When they first learn of the philosophical bias behind the shift to Darwinism, Christians, particularly younger Christians who have had university training, display an interesting reaction.  Their university training almost always pressures them into accepting evolution.  ... they have a difficult time believing that evolution is not a scientifically proven fact.
p21    When I point out to them that science gathers facts and then interprets those facts by means of a theory based on assumptions, and that human factors such as philosophical bias are involved as well, they still often believe that evolution is the only reasonable choice.  They do not understand that the clash between evolution and creation is between one belief system and another.  They have been propagandized into thinking evolution is a scientific fact.  ... The continual presentation of evolution as fact has taken its toll on their thinking.
    ... we will need to take a closer look first at thought systems and how they are used, and then at some scientific evidence.

Chapter 2:  Fact, Faith, and Logic:  An Organized Approach
p23    ... scientists and others use an overall plan to help organize the thinking process.  ... This systematic approach makes fitting the individual pieces into an overall pattern a much simpler task than just randomly picking pieces which might happen to fit together.  ... scientists, like others, use such overall thought plans to help put the pieces of the puzzle together.

p24    The pattern our mind uses is known as a thought system.  ...  A thought system consists of assumptions, data, and conclusions.  Logical thought is the means by which we draw conclusions from the facts after starting with certain assumptions.
    Since no one knows it all, his assumptions are held by faith.  This is as true for the study of science as for any other discipline.  ... scientists use faith.  ... All scientific explanations are based on faith because faith is the grounds on which the original assumptions are held.

Assumptions in Science:
    An eminent scientist, the late Dr. Vannevar Bush, ... wrote an article to try to eliminate "the misconception that scientists can establish a complete set of facts and relations about the universe, all neatly proved, and that on this firm basis men can securely establish their personal philosophy, their personal religion, free from doubt or error ... Science never proves anything, in an absolute sense.  It works by process of induction, and of deduction ... Deduction uses the rules of logic to proceed from a set of assumptions to their consequences." (Vannevar Bush, "Sciences Pauses," Fortune, May 1965, 116, 119, 167.)
    Scientists, then, like others, use thought systems in order to organize and make sense of data.  Beginning with their assumptions and using logic, they draw conclusions from the data.  And their assumptions are held by faith.  This means that even using the same data, different assumptions will lead to different conclusions. ... Different assumptions lead to different conclusions from the same facts.  It is an error to think that everyone starts with the same set of assumptions.
p26    ... even in science assumptions are used for interpreting data ...
p27    ... the same scientific data can be interpreted with different assumptions.

Two Basic Assumptions:
    In considering the question of origins, there are two options which ... encompass the whole range of possibilities open to thinking man. Those two great assumptions are:  (1) a Creator acted;    (2) a Creator did not act.
   p28    Creator are supernatural acts or divine fiats, ans so this view is sometimes known as fiat creation or special creation.
In the second view, with its presupposition that a Creator did not act, nothing supernatural was involved for either the origin of the universe or the origin of life.  No divine fiats took place.  No intelligence was involved.  Only natural processes occurred, describable entirely using only principles of chemistry and physics.
    ... Dr. Robert Jastrow, well-known geologist, astronomer, and physicist, claims to be an agnostic with views similar to those of Darwin.  His analysis of the question of the origin of life is instructive:  "Perhaps the appearance of life on the Earth is a miracle.  Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited.  Either life was created on the Earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet.
    The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry.  It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science.
    The second theory is also an act of faith.  The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief." (Robert Jastrow, "God's Creation," Science Digest, Special Spring Issue, 1980, 68.)
p29     ... Dr. Jastrow does not accept the creation view ... he also defines evolution as "the scientific view."
    However evolution is not the scientific view.  To a scientist who believes in creation, creation is "the scientific view."   Thus, even the definition of what is the scientific view is determined by one's bias about origins.
    ... Dr. Jastrow says ... that whichever view or assumption system one chooses, he does so by faith.  A scientist, whether he is a creationist or an evolutionist, must use faith.  He has faith in his beginning assumption.
    Thus all scientific explanations involve faith in the assumptions on which the explanations are based.  Regarding creation and evolution, the assumptions and thought system one uses are a matter of personal choice.

Recognizing the Philosophical Roots:
p31    ... Each of the two fundamental assumptions forms the basis of a total world view.  All of life and reality is interpreted within one or the other assumption system.  The following table ... summarizing the contrast:
    CREATOR ACTED          vs        CREATOR DIDN'T ACT
    Supernatural origins                        Naturalistic origins
    Design                                            Chance
    Miracle                                           Properties of matter (chemistry & physics)
    Event                                              Natural process
    Creation                                          Evolution

    Creation and evolution are conflicting philosophies.  They each constitute a belief system about the past.  ... at its roots the debate between creation and evolution is philosophical ...
    In a discussion on the origin of life, the well-known scientist George Wald, an evolutionary biologist, makes an interesting observation about present day biologists.  "... many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a 'philosophical necessity.'  It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated.  Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. (Wald, "origin of Life,: 46)
    p32    ... Much of the confusion over creation and evolution would be cleared away if the philosophical foundations behind the two views were more openly discussed.  ... there are indications that the philosophical roots of the creation-evolution controversy are being recognized.
... editorial made the following observation "The scientist enters into a study with certain preconceived notions and interprets the results of the study with the same preconceived notions.  True objectivity simply does not exist in the scientific world.  A creationist and an evolutionist can agree on the data, the physically observable phenomena (whether it be the distribution of radioisotopes in a given geological structure or the bone formations of a living animal or fossil).  They will then proceed to interpret that data according to their own presuppositions ('God created this' or 'It all happened by accident').  Both employ the same data, but reach strikingly different conclusions." (Donald F. Calbreath, "The Challenge of Creationism: another Point of View," American Laboratory, Nov. 1980, 10.)

Logic Is Not Perfect:
    ... creation and evolution are both explanatory systems.  They both begin with assumptions and try to explain the data from those assumptions.  Deductive logic is used to draw conclusions and meaning from the data.  But logic itself is not a perfect tool.
... Conclusions logically drawn from factual data are no more valid than the assumptions on which they are based.  Thus creation and evolution can be no more true than the supernatural or antisupernatural assumptions on which they are based.

An Absolute Reference Point:
p34    ... Evolution is a philosophic system, and creation is a philosophic system.  But how can we know which system is true?  To answer this question, it is necessary to have an absolute reference point.  If we had an absolute reference point, a premise or assumption which was known to be absolutely true, then we could use logic to reason from that point to check evolution or creation as a system.
    ... Human beings are finite beings.  We do not have all knowledge and all wisdom.  We cannot serve as an absolute reference point for truth.  No one knows it all.  Thus, anyone using human logic alone cannot be absolutely certain that his conclusions are true.
p35    ... Finite man is not absolute.  He cannot serve as the absolute reference point.  He cannot say on his own that any logical system is completely true.  The only way possible to know that a system is true is to place our faith in an absolute from outside the system.
 

Chapter 3 - Evidence and Experts
p37    Two basic parts to science:
    1. science observes the present universe, the material universe as it is now.  ... these observations are made on the universe as it exists in its present condition.  Scientists cannot directly observe the past.
    2. science is more than just a collection of observations about the universe.
        In addition to collecting observational facts about the present universe, and perhaps cataloging those facts, scientists also attempt to fit those facts into some kind of pattern to make meaning out of them.  When a scientist makes enough of a certain type of observation so that a pattern becomes apparent, a hypothesis is formulated.
    A hypothesis seeks to make meaning out of the observational facts or data.  It is used for interpreting facts when relatively few observatiions are involved.
    With continued observations (if these new observations fit the same pattern) the hypothesis is elevated to the status of theory.
Theory may be thought of as a more mature hypothesis.
p38        With still more observations fitting the same pattern, and when the number of observations has become quite large, theory is advanced to the status of scientific law.
    There is  a definite progression from hypothesis up through theory to law.  A scientific law is a summary statement concerning a very large number of observations all fitting the same pattern.
    Hence a theory in science may cover a wide range of degrees of verification.
p39    ... the second part of science, that of attempting to make meaning out of the data by interpreting it and forming a hypothesis

The Limitations of Science:
p42    Some scientists believe in creation.  Other scientists believe in evolution.  When experts disagree, how is one to decide which position is correct?
    ... quite often the difference is resolved not by seeking the truth, but by political methods.  ... force rules the direction that is taken. ... might makes right ... Truth suffers.
p43    Scientists are normally specialists in only one or, at the most, a few areas of science ...
    ... we don't know it all.  Experts have limitations, too.
    ... Only God's Word can be trusted to give us absolute truth, and if experts disagree with it we may be confident the experts are wrong.

p44    Each person adopts a world view based on faith.  If he accepts creation, he does so by faith.  If he rejects creation, he does so by faith.
    Creation has not been scientifically or logically disproved.  It is only disbelieved.

p45    ... ultimate truth does not come from "experts."  Ultimate truth comes from The Expert.
    How then is one to determine the truth of a certain matter?  Science alone cannot do this for us.  Science is practiced by scientists and this means that human factors must also be taken into account.

Human Factors in Science
    The human factor in science has all too frequently been overlooked or ignored. ...
p46    ... Human factors are very influential in science.  They affect the way a scientist makes assumptions, and even the assumptions he chooses to hold.  Human factors are involved in the theories a researcher makes and holds.  Each scientist has his own biases.

The Myth of Objectivity
    ... the myth that only objectivity enters into science
p47    ... scientists are not always totally objective even in their most intense efforts in science.
    this is especially true in such a highly emotional issue as creation and evolution.  In this case, the problem is intensified because the past cannot be brought into the laboratory.  ... Scientists can only study the universe as it exists at present.  ... Hypotheses about past events are very vulnerable to influence by human factors.

A Self-Correcting Enterprise?
p48    In the case of what has been termed neo-science, it may largely be true that science is self-correcting.  Neo-science is a study of the present universe.  Experiments can be repeated and data checked for accuracy.
... In the case of paleoscience, however, repetition of what happened in the past is not possible.
One of the basic methods of science, repeatability, cannot be applied to earth history. ... History happened only once.

p49    This puts severe limits on any scientific discussion of the past, a fact that has great significance for the idea of creation and evolution.  It is therefore much more difficult for paleoscience to be self-correcting, and human factors are at least as operative in paleoscience as they are in neoscience.
... And yet it is in the area of paleoscience that much of the disagreement between creation and evolution occurs.
Paleoscience cannot really be studied by methods which are generally termed "scientific."  this limitation has been noted by scholars who are evolutionists as well as by creationists.
... The past cannot be scientifically studied except by extrapolation of observations taken in the present.  Extrapolation from the present into the past is a very risky venture.

p50    Repeatability is not a characteristic of paleoscience and is one of the main reasons that it hardly ever proceeds out of the hypothesis stage.  Any theory regarding paleoscience is an infant theory at best.
    Scientific theories are very useful, however, for helping us interpret factual data.  ... they are also subject to abuses.  Abuse of scientific theory is largely the result of human factors entering into science.
... E.H. Andrews (Prof. E.H. Andrews, Is Evolution Scientific?(Welwyn, Herts., England; Evangelical Press, 1977), 14-16)  notes the following five abuses of scientific theory:  dogmatism, extrapolation, exaggeration, subjectivism, and exploitation. ... they are the reason many people are prodded into beliving in evolution.

    1) Dogmatism, occurs when theory is equated to or confused with fact.  Theory is an interpretation of factual observations and not the facts themselves.   One of the ways this problem can occur is when summaries of factual information are presented without the factual information itself being available.
    Nowadays evolution is nearly always presented as reality.  Educational textbooks present evolution as fact.  ... They imply that one may argue about the mode or method of evolution, but not the fact of evolution.  ... It is dogmatism because theory is equated to or confused with fact.

    2) Extrapolation, occurs when a theory is extended to areas in which it is not known to apply.

    3) Exaggeration, is the abuse that occurs when theory is accorded a higher degree of verification or development than is justified by data.

    4) Subjectivism, a theory will be defended even when new observational facts turn up which seem to be countrary to the new theory.  New facts contrary to the theory will be explained away as errors of observation or inapplicable for some other reason.  Sometimes facts which support a theory will be accepted and reported while those which do not support the theory will be left our or considered erroneous and not reported.

    5) Exploitation, occurs when scientific theory is used as an excuse to support or justify activities in the political, social, educational, or economic areas.

The Nature of Science:
p53    Basic Science.  It is science for science's sake.  It is the accumulation of knowledge about the material world around us.  Basic science includes not only the gathering of factual information, but also its interpretation into some kind of meaningful overall framework
        Applied Science.  It uses the fundamental knowledge gained from basic science and applies it in such areas as engineering, health sciences, ... useful activities.

Science, a Search for Truth:
...    the founders of modern science operated from a theistic base.  They felt their discoveries about the material world around them should be interpreted in a God-honoring way and that they were learning truthnot only about creation, but also about the Creator.  ... they viewed their discoveries of the natural laws of the universe as thinking God's thoughts after Him.  Because they came from a theistic base and believed in a created universe, they were convinced they were discovering truthabout that universe.  To them science was a search for truth.
    Michael Faraday is a good illustration of this.  He was not only a truly great scientist, but a thoroughly committed Christian.  ... Science to Faraday meant truth.

p54    ... The early scientists placed great emphasis on truth.  They were discovering truth about the universe.  To them, a scientific explanation was a true explanation, one which reflected reality.
    Armed thus with a biblical theology of science and a natural curiosity combined with their high regard for truth, the early scientists were led to some very fundamental and important discoveries.  They not only carried out basic research to learn the fundamental laws of the material universe, but they carried out applied science as well to learn how their new knowledge could be used in a practical way.  ... leading to the industrial age.

The Rise of Scientism
    The success of scientists in discovering new truths about the material world and in applying them in areas that affect everyday life was great.  So great in fact that the success of science that a drift in thinking occurred toward science as the ultimate guide to truth.  Science itself was credited rather than its biblical philosophical base.  There appeared a tendency to transfer authority for ultimate truth away from the Bible and toward science.
    This gave rise to scientism, or the worship of science.
Scientism is the tendency to attribute to man and his efforts in science what rightly belongs only to God. ...

p55    Scientism is also exemplified by the inscription appearing on the National Academy of Sciences building: "To science, pilot of industry, conqueror of disease, multiplier of the harvest, explorer of the universe, revealer of nature's laws, eternal guide to truth."  ... man and his activities in science are taking credit for what rightfully belongs only to God.  Scientism is really idolatry.  ... Idolatry is a transfer of authority from the Bible as a source of truth to man and his activities.  ...

Popularization of Science
    ... modern science with its roots springing from Christianity and a belief in creation became extremely successful.
    ... Popularization of science can be a good thing.  People need to know about and appreciate it ...
    ... Because science plays such a large part in day-to-day living, everyone needs to know a little something about science in order to communicate intelligently.  Thus, I am certainly not implying that knowledge of science is bad.
    What is bad, however, are abuses of the popularization of science and abuses of scientific theory.
    Science must not become an idol.

Abusing the Popularization of Science
p56    "The dangers of the popularization of science show up best in phrases such as 'Science has shown ...' or 'Scientists believe ...' or 'Scientists have proved ...' ... such expressions often constitute a kind of mental processing, calculated to improve the acceptability of some idea which is not really sound. ... (Andrews, Is Evolution Scientific?,5)
    ... one must not forget to retain the habit of asking, "Yes, but is the statement true?"
    It is also essential to remember to separate fact from interpretation of fact.

p57    A further problem associated with the popularization of science is the tendency of the media toward sensationalism.
      ... leaving out the qualifying details can surely give a wrong impression.

Redefining Science
    ... science began from a creation base, a change in philosophy occurred.
     ... Supernaturalism was replaced by antisupernaturalism.
    ... Associated with this philosophical shift was also a new definition of the word science.
    ... To the early modern scientists, a scientific definition was synonymous with a true explanation
    After Darwin ... a new connotation with an entirely different meaning began to be used.
    In the new definition of the term, a scientific explanation was, by definition, a naturalistic one (science = naturalism).  Its main emphasis was on avoidance of the supernatural as an explanation.  In the new definition, science was an enterprise which attempted to explain the material universe, both past and present, in naturalistic terms.  The truth of an explanation was not as important as avoiding the miraculous.
p58        For example, ... one science textbook explains, ... the scientists' criterion for a "good" theory does not depend upon whether it is true or not.  He measures it only by its consequences- ... consequences in terms of other ideas and other experiments.  Thus conceived, science is not a quest for certainty; it is rather a quest which is successful only to the degree that it is continuous (James Conant, Science and Understanding, Yale University Press, 1951, pp 25-26)
    Based on the methodology of the early modern scientists who were mostly Christians, science began to achieve notable success.  There was a subsequent popularization of science and it occurred at the same time that naturalistic philosophy was gaining ground.  This caused confusion.  The result was that the new definition of science was reinforced.  Naturalistic science stole the credit for the success of science and the new successful technology it engendered.
    Those who opposed a mechanistic explanation for origins were thus labeled as unscientific or even antiscientific, and were classed as ignorant and uneducated.
    Originally the view of origins among scientists was creation; now creation was relabeled a religious explanation.  Creation science was now labeled religion and naturalistic science was simply called science.  Thus there developed a conflict between "science" and "religion."  Religion was portrayed as being against or inhibiting science.  The underlying philosophical bases for the new definition and accusations were largely ignored.  It was a subtle and vicious attack on historic Christianity and on true science as well.

The Limitations of Science
p59    Scientists have limited data.    We can only observe and perform scientific experiments on the universe as it exists at the present.
    On the broad scale all the way from hypothesis through theory to scientific law, where then does evolution appear?
Evolution is hardly more than a hypothesis.  The fact that it is not possible to go back and repeat history and make scientific observations on it means that evolution will never be able to be more than a hypothesis.  There is insufficient data to elevate it to even the status of theory, much less a law.
    As far as observations on the present universe go, the same is true for creation.  We cannot go back and observe the creation events.
    Creation and evolution are both under the same handicap at this point.  Neither can be studied in the laboratory today.
Both are on the same footing as far as scientific observation goes.
    Creation, however, has at least one distinct major advantage over evolution.  Creation is supported by historical testimony of the Creator.  The Creator was present at creation, and he has communicated to us in the Bible true information about creation and about the universe.

Chapter 4    Evidence vs. Evolution [or Examples of the abuse of Science]
p62    ... creation and evolution are opposing philosophies.  One is supernatural; the other is natural.
They are both interpretive schemes for explaining scientific facts.  Furthermore, they are philosophical opposites.  They are antithetical.  If one is true, the other is false.
    Both views are based on faith.  Evolution is based on faith in the idea that nothing supernatural was involved.  Creation is based on faith in acts of a Creator.

p63    Which of these two approaches is true?  Which one describes reality?    Which explanation fits the facts?
... what do the scientific facts really show?

The Fossil Record
...    If the Darwinian process really took place, remains of plants and animals (fossils) should show a gradual and continual change from one type of animal or plant into another.  One of the things that worried Darwin in his day, as well as modern evolutionists, was that the fossil record did not supply these intermediate life forms.
    Darwin did not base his ideas on observation of scientific data.  He did not begin with data.  He began with a belief system

p64    and then looked for data to support his beliefs.  Not only did he not see evidence of a slow, gradual change from his observation of the fossil record of the past, but he believed change of one species into another in living forms could not even be observed within the single lifetime of a scientist.  ... evolution could not be observed in the present.  Actual observation of evolutionary change was therefore not possible.
    A modern-day proponent of evolution states, "Darwin portrayed evolution as a stately and orderly process, working at a speed so slow that no person could hope to observe it in a lifetime.  Ancestors and descendants, Darwin argued, must be connected by 'infinitely numerous transitional links' forming 'the finest graduated steps.'  Only an immense span of time had permitted such a sluggish process to achieve so much." (Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, 12)
    In Darwin's day, however, the fossil record did not support slow gradual change.  The countless in-between plant and animal forms that must have been preserved in the fossil record if Darwinism were correct were simply not there.  The facts of the fossil record were against Darwinism.
    How did Darwin get around the obvious discrepancy between his theory and factual observation?  He did it by inventing additional postulates in an attempt to prop up his theory to fit the actual evidence.  He postulated that the fossil record was incomplete.  Rather than admit his theory was wrong, he blamed the fossil record for being imperfect.
    For more than one hundred years since Darwin's day scientists have continued to study the fossil record intensely.  How has the situation changed?  Of all the countless fossil remains which have been discovered and studied, in-between forms are still missing from the record.  Even today, scientists still use the same excuse that Darwin used: the fossil record is incomplete; we just haven't found the in-between species yet.
    Stephen Gould, a strong proponent of evolution and strongly anticreationist, observes this:  "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.  The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
    Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution.  In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots).  I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks. (Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, 14)

p65     Observational evidence simply does not support the idea of slow gradual change (Duane T. Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! (San Diego: Creation Life 1979).  This fact is even admitted by evolutionists ... (as noted above by Gould).
    A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states.  They did not change from one kind into another.
    The evidence now, as in Darwin's day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation.  Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind.  ... the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.  One scientist observes, "It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts.  The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material.  The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." (Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson, quoted by Francis Hitching in "Was Darwin Wrong?"  Life, April 1982, 49)
    The evidence simply does not support slow gradual change.  To believe and advocate a theory in spite of evidence is an abuse of scientific theory known as subjectivism.  It is a serious abuse and a block on the path toward finding truth.

Evidence from Genetics
    Not finding support for evolution from collections of fossils in museums of natural history or in the field, supporters of evolution then turned their attention to the biology laboratory.

p66    ... Each cell in a living organism has a set of instructions or code which carries informatioin for all the functions to be carried out by the cell.  During repoduction, this code is copied and passed on from one generation to the next.  ... Once in a rare while, ... a copying error is made.  The copying error is ... in the genetic material and will be inherited during subsequent generations.  Copying errors are known as mutations.  Mutations are almost always harmful.
    ... In order for evolution to work, new genetic material must come into being.  Mutations can be a source of new genetic material.  Observations show, however, that by overwhelming odds these mutations or mistakes are harmful to the resulting organism.
    Modern followers of Darwin (neo-Darwinists) nevertheless hypothesize that very rarely a beneficial mutation may occur.  They further believe that these beneficial mutations will spread throughout a population so that natural selection can take over to assure the survival of this trait.  ... According to this hypothesis, genetics can provide the mechanism to support Darwin's original thesis.
    How well does actual evidence in the science of genetics support evolution?  Here again, it does not.
        "It is fair to say that this explanation of evolution (called the synthetic theory, because it combines Darwinism, Mendelian inheritance, and the mathematics of population change) has utterly dominated biological science for the last 50 years.  The teaching of evolution in virtually all colleges in the Western world means the teaching of population genetics.  With such apparent unanimity in the testbooks and the classrooms, it comes as something of a surprise to discover that, to increasing numbers of scientists, the synthetic theory is as full of holes as the fossil record itself." (Hitching, "Was Darwin Wrong?" 50)

p67    Careful observation of plants and animals in nature, and experiments in the laboratory with artificial breeding of animals and plants seem to show quite clearly that the genetic system is one of maintenance.  The status quo is preserved.  There are definite limits to change.  Species remain species.
    Large numbers of mutations have been generated artificially in the laboratory by atomic radiation, by chemicals, and other means.  This has afforded an opportunity to experimentally check the belief that mutations lead to new species.
    One organism which has been studied very extensively is the fruit fly.  Many generations of fruit flies have been raised in the laboratory.  They have been artificially mutated time after time.  And yet fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies.
(Hitching, "Was Darwin Wrong?" 50)
    Observation in the laboratory simply does not support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.  Evidence agrees exactly with the statements in Genesis that plants and animals were created to reproduce after their kind.

The Origin of Life
    Genetics poses an additional problem for the evolutionary hypothesis.  How did the genetic code arise in the first place?  The genetic code is associated with complex molecules known as DNA and RNA ... .  To function, these molecules need a living cell.  However, a living cell, to function, needs the DNA and RNA genetic apparatus.  ...
Evolutionists admit this is a real problem for their hypothesis, yet they will not concede to creation.
... One evolutionary writer, while recognizing the problem of the origin of the genetic code, makes the following comment: "... By a preDarwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation.  In our day another, but still far from demonstrated (or possibly demonstrable), view seems the only logical one: that a primitive and generalized mode of replicatiion of genetic material arose in evolution either before the existence of these critical enzymes or coordinately with proteins which gradually took on crude and generalized enzymelike functions. (Caryl P. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970," american Scientist (May-June 1971): 305)
p68     This is a truly amazing statement.  The evidence clearly points to creation, but it is not accepted.  Instead, the author prefers a position of materialistic origins even though he admits it may not be demonstrable from factual evidence.  It shows his position is a belief system based not only on faith, but even blind faith, because it has no factual support and is even contrary to evidence.
    Evolution as a hypothesis for the origin of life is totally devoid of factual observations for its support.  It is a leap of faith into the dark after creation is rejected.
    Another well-known scientist who has spoken out on this point is Robert Jastrow, who is an agnostic.
(He has attached the modern definition to the word science in the quote below.  Recall that this definition states that scientific explanation does not mean a true explanation, just one that does not involve creation.  As a scientist and creationist, I would not agree to Jastrow's definition of the word "scientific".  It is important, however, to realize that one's view of origins relates to how the term "scientific" is used.  A creation scientist uses the term in a sense different from that of an evolutionary scientist.)
    "According to the scientific story of Genesis, it happened this way: Now and then in the primordial seas of the earth, collisions occurred between neighboring molecules; in some of these collisions, two small molecules stuck together to form a larger one; then another small molecule collided and stuck; and then another.  Eventually, after countless millions of chance encounters, a molecule was formed that had the magical ability to divide into two copies of itself.  This was the start of parenthood; it was the start of life.
    From generation to generation, parent molecules produced daughters; their numbers multiplied; today, their descendents are on the earth; they are the molecules called DNA, which lie in the center of every living cell. ...
What concrete evidence supports this remarkable theory of the origin of life?  There is none." (Robert Jastrow, "Genesis Revealed," Science Digest, Special Winter Issue, 1979, 40)
p69      Jastrow continues by explaining that not only is there no concrete evidence to support the hypothesis of the evolutionary origin of life, but none will likely ever be found.  In the evolutionary belief system, life arose so long ago that any evidence of its origin would probably have been erased even if it did exist at one time.  Molecules halfway between life and nonlife would probably have decayed by now.  Hence evidence of the transition from nonlife to life should not be present now.
    Thus, an evolutionist must invent additional postulates to explain the lack of evidence for the evolutionary origin of first life.  What is the difference whether we say the supposed evidence was there and disappeared somehow or was never there in the first place?
    The evolutionary hypothesis for the origin of life is without observational evidence for its support in either the fossil record or from the biology laboratory.  If life arose by an evolutionary process, it must have subsequently developed by stages.  Evidence in the fossil record does not support this idea.
p70     Furthermore, evidence from genetics indicates that life forms reproduce after their kind and these kinds do not merge one into another.  Evolutionary hypothesis is not only not supported by evidence; it is actually contrary to the evidence.  To support a theory even when it is contrary to fact is an abuse of scientific theory.  It is subjectivism.

Evidence of Design
    In addition to all this evidence against evolution, there is much positive observational evidence that strongly points to design and purpose in nature.  Evidence of design and purpose point to creation.  Even Darwin recognized this.  He admits that it caused him much mental distress.
    Modern evolutionists also recognize that there is evidence which seems to point to design and purpose, but they will not admit that there is a designer or purpose.  Instead, they refer to situations indicating design as "anomalies" of evolution.
The eye provides an example of an organ having a structure which seems to indicate design.
    "The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.  How could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events?  Many people in Darwin's day agreed with theologian William Paley, who commented, "There cannot be a design without a designer." (Robert Jastrow, "Evolution: Selection for Perfection,"  Science Digest, Dec. 1981, 86)
    ... Evolutionists, however, in looking at an eye, ... conclude that there is no designer.
    "But most scientists today do not share Darwin's doubts; they are convinced that his theory of evolution removes the need for a guiding hand in the Universe.  The great evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson expressed a nearly universal opinion among scientists when he wrote that evolution "achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer, and has produced a vast plan without the action of a planner." (Robert Jastrow, "Evolution: Selection for Perfection,"  Science Digest, Dec. 1981, 86)
    To reject evidence of design when it is so clearly evident is again an example of the abuse of scientific theory known as subjectivism.  The evidence is clear, there is no excuse for missing it. ...
    Science is not studied in a vacuum.  It is always carried out in a philosophical framework.  Evolution and creation are two such competing frameworks.
    Although many people today hold to an evolutionary philosophical framework and study science in that context, in my opinion it provides an inferior and limited view of reality.  Evolution is not adequate for the big questions.  It is not in agreement with facts and reality.
    If evolution is not true, what do we put in its place?  It is one thing to throw stones at a theory or world view, but it is another to offer something better.
    Creation science does offer a fully acceptable and satisfying alternative.  Creation science begins with wholly biblical presuppositions and interprets data from all of reality, including science, within that framework.
 

Chapter 5    Source of Conflict:
Atonomous Man, Autonomous Universe
p77    Natural man builds his world view by beginning autonomously from himself with a set of assumptions  or presuppositions.  He then uses these assumptions to interpret all factual data.
    A Christian also builds a world view by beginning with a set of presuppositions, but he does not do so autonomously.  He uses the Bible as a guide.
    A very basic assumption everyone must make concerns the nature of the material universe.  Because natural man seeks to be autonomous, he also assumes the material universe is autonomous or independent of God.  Instead of referring to the material universe as the creation, natural man calls it nature.  Nature is assumed to have an existence independent from God.  It is assumed to be self-contained, governed by a set of natural laws.  Natural man tends to assume everything that happens occurs as a result of the operation of natural causes; all occurrences must be explainable in terms of the laws of chemistry and physics.  Everything is reducible to chemistry and physics, including life, and even man's mind.  Nature is considered to be autonomous.  It behaves like a self-running machine, independent of any outside influence.

A Dependent Creation
p80    ... of the two possibilities for approaching the past ... consider the other assumption - that the natural world is not autonomous.  Instead, it is dependent moment by moment on its Creator.  In the dependent view, the world does not have an independent existence.
p81    ... In the dependent view, which originates from the Bible, the whole created universe is upheld moment by moment by the word of the Creator's power (Hebrews 1:3).  ... the whole universe, past, present, and future, is dependent moment by moment on the will of God.
p82    ... The dependent view as an assumption for interpreting all of earth history, past, present, and future, is not one which makes sense to the natural or pagan mind.

Science Redefined
p83    ... The natural man defines his world view as science, and then using circular logic says that science cannot make the dependent universe assumption.  The natural mind insists that the autonomous view fits reality.
... the autonomous world view in our present culture is termed the evolutionary world view or the "scientific" world view.
    Those who hold to the autonomous view of the natural world frequently state that evolution is a fact.  By this they mean that their own world view is the only acceptable description of reality, as opposed to creation, which they believe to be fantasy.
    One of the reasons frequently offered by evolutionists for not accepting the dependent view of the natural world is that it would be unscientific.
    Their definition of science, however, is the naturalistic explanation of an autonomous world.
... their circular argument runs this way:
        1) Nothing can happen that is not in accordance with natural laws
        2) science deals with things that happen according to natural laws
        3) therefore, any view other than things happening only by natural laws is unscientific.

p84    The natural mind has a strong tendency to remain trapped in this circle.
... According to the Bible, however, the autonomous view does not describe reality.
In the biblical world view, the natural world is dependent moment by moment on the Creator.  It is upheld by the word of His power.  This is reality in the biblical view.
    Science in the dependent view is defined differently from science in the autonomous view.  A Christian can just as validly erect another circular argument.  It would run as follows:
    1) The natural world is dependent on God and is upheld moment by moment by the word of His power;
    2) science is a study of the natural world;
    3) therefore, any view other than the universe upheld by the word of His power is unscientific.
...    Guided by the Bible, a Christian scientist also makes the assumption of the uniformity of natural causes ... but he also allows for God to will an event to occur in a noncustomary way.
    The Bible clearly makes some statements about cases in which God acted other than in His habitual way.  Thus the Bible is a necessary guide to the study of science.  It is a guide to the study of reality.  It is a guide for a scientific search for truth.  ...