Spencer Sullivan responded to comment #1 to say that if theistic evolution simply puts God in charge of the evolution process, then by analogy, God is relegated to its clockmaker; how is this wrong?

My objections to theistic evolution could have been stated more clearly. The point is, God told us in Genesis how life and man were created: Essentially one day for plants and one day for animals, and they were created 'according to their kind'. For example, all rose types only mate with other types of rose, and all dog types only mate with other dogs. DNA precludes all mating among species, yet this is exactly what must occur for evolution to be valid. To say that God is in charge of evolution (theistic evolution), supports a theory that God created all of life by progressively making slight changes in genetics, e.g., birds were changed into mammals gene by gene over millions of years. God could have done that, but there is no evidence for this in the fossil record, in scripture, or in the biology of today's species to conjecture that such a process as evolution ever occurred.

Conversely, biology today is consistent with the fossil record, with scripture and with observed processes of species diversification. If the process of chromosome segregation, permitted blending among species, there would be evidence; there is none. It requires far more faith to believe in evolution than in Biblical creation.

Theistic evolutionists want to believe in the integrity of scientists and their 'data', yet from the beginning, evolutionist want only to discredit any spiritual involvement in the origin of species.

Related to this, an interesting character in Christianity is John Nelson Darby. He was a very powerful preacher in the 19th century, and believed strongly that the science world view should trump the Christian world view. Since Lyell and others were very certain that God did not exist, they were determined to explain away the Biblical creation model. One of Darby's main staff was Cyrus Scofield, author of the Scofield King James Study Bible, written in the late 1800's. This is still the absolute authority for many churches. His study notes 'interpret' the scripture, rather than expand on it historically or cross-reference. Regarding Genesis Chapter 1, the following are Scofield's notes regarding his assumption of a primary and secondary creation [first fossil animals, then man]:

'It is by no means necessary to suppose that the life-germ of seeds perished in the catastrophic judgment which overthrew the primitive order. With the restoration of dry land and light the earth would "bring forth" as described. It was "animal" life which perished, the traces of which remain as fossils. Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.' Many content, Scofield's note were the birth of theistic evolution. P.S., Darby was also responsible for the popularity of the 'rapture' and other end times issues, and also with dispensational theology. Many reject the scriptural underpinning of these ideas as well. Hope all this helps.

In Christ, Dan

I quite understand the reticence of a non-technical person to take a position on the science behind the origin of life; conflicting information abounds. It took me years to fully grasp all the astronomy, geology, paleontology, dating and other irrelevant, mind numbing data, yet the truth is not that complex, and evolution is not part of the explanation. I have a doctorate in biology, and am quite passionate in my objections to the lack of credible science behind the theory of evolution. Further, numerous long-refuted facts are published in our textbooks, generation after generation, with the unyielding support of the ACLU, yet valid, scientific data that clearly show the errors in this conjecture (evolution is not ‘theory’) cannot be included because they reveal the intervention of a supernatural power in the origin of life. It’s that simple. As people of faith, when we choose, alternatively, to accept ‘theistic evolution’, and just give God sovereignty over evolution, this no less affirms evolution, we still exclude the data validating a creation event, and we give credence to evolution from the pulpit. Evolution has proposed no biological or physical ‘process’ whereby fish somehow turn into frogs, birds into mammals, or monkeys into man. Besides lacking scientific underpinning, there is some other baggage that goes with evolution. If children are taught in school that they are a direct ancestor of primates, rather than the truth that we are made in God’s image and given dominion over the Earth, it leads to the assumption we have inherited an animal nature. This comes up to justify animal-like behavior among inmates, and the ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality among very powerful people in politics and industry. Further, the enslavement of blacks, and later the destruction of Jews and others by the Nazis were justified based on people of these cultures being less evolved than Caucasians. Hitler, Stalin and Marx were all strong evolutionists. Scientifically there are no races.

Creation science is not without fault in its legal battle with evolution over the teaching of ‘origins’ in our schools. Yet, there is simple, basic science at the core of this dispute, supported by thousands of scientists, and evolution has no response for it. Genesis 1:20-25 discusses the generation of water and land creatures on days 5 and 6 resp., ‘each according to its kind’. While this may not actually mention genetics and DNA, diversity of species,within ‘kinds’ of creatures, is exactly how biology has worked throughout all recorded history and today; dogs have always begotten other dogs. Why is that? There is a unique DNA code for each 'kind' of plant and animal, a chain composed of literally billons of nucleotide pairs. When a male and female mate, every link of this chain must match, link by link; DNA prevents two individuals of different species from mating. Dogs and other animals can diversify within their kind, however, for evolution to be valid, a bird-like creature must be able to evolve into a mammal; such a thing has never been documented.

The Law of Biogenesis explains the biological diversity observed on Earth. It states, a male and female of a kind will undergo sexual reproduction (segregation and redistribution of chromosomes) and have offspring. The offspring will differ from either parent, but will always be of the same kind. Biogenesis and evolution are mutually exclusive, and no exception to the Law of Biogenesis has ever been documented. The purpose of teaching evolution is not to educate students with facts regarding the origin of life, it is to indoctrinate them, under protection of law and the ACLU, regarding a refuted philosophy that states man arose by random forces, without supernatural intervention. When our children are taught this in the classroom, by teachers they trust, and also from the pulpit, we help to bury the truth that we’re special creations made in God’s image.

There are a number of credible books that objectively discuss the deceit behind evolution; ‘Icons of Evolution’ by Jonathan Wells and ‘Case for a Creator’ by Lee Strobel are the best. Just wanted to provide some balance.