Les Sherlock’s Critique of ‘Rescuing Darwin’

‘God and evolution in Britain today’

By Nick Spencer and Denis Alexander

NOTES

This 70 page book, produced by Theos “the public theology think tank,” as expected from the title, is an attempt by two evolutionists to show that evolution is compatible with Christianity. Their commitment to evolution can be seen from the second paragraph:

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright ©1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Page 9: “In 2009 the evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming… the fossil record, although incomplete, firmly supports the theory, revealing an impressive series of transitional forms. More recently, advances in genetics have hugely strengthened evolution, to the extent that, in scientific circles at least, it is incontestable.”

Scripture quotations labelled NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004.  Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream,, Illinois 60188.  All rights reserved.

This statement is ‘elephant hurling’ (claiming a mass of evidence, which is unaccompanied by any kind of proof). It is untrue that there is “an impressive series of transitional forms” in the fossil record demonstrating evolution of species and I would challenge the authors to provide a list. It can be guaranteed that were they to do so, then once examples of mutation resulting in damage to the genome and natural selection have been eliminated,* at best all that would be left would be a handful of disputed specimens. When asked, “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process, which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” (essential for evolution of species to occur) Richard Dawkins was unable then, or since, to do so satisfactorily. See YouTube

Far from advances in genetics strengthening evolution, they have demonstrated its impossibility: the books of the genetic scientist Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, show this conclusively. Although Rescuing Darwin makes reference to these books, to pretend in this paragraph there is no scientific opposition to evolution is being sparing with the truth, to say the least.

* Neither of these alone could produce the kind of change required for evolution of species to occur.

Natural selection can only shuffle, or at best eliminate, pre-existing genetic information and cannot produce any new information to create novel organs, for example, essential to enable the evolution of new kinds of life.

Mutation is at best neutral change, but is usually the destruction of some of what is present rather than the construction of something new.

Perhaps one should clarify ‘evolution’ at this point, since evolutionists use its two very different meanings interchangeably. If it is used to refer to any kind of change taking place in living things as a result of natural selection and mutation, then certainly it can be observed all around us: it is these examples evolutionists are so fond of claiming as evidence for evolution of species, when they are not. On the other hand, ‘Evolution of species’ requires change as a step towards a novel feature not seen previously in the species, which would therefore require an increase in the information in the DNA. There is no undisputed example of this anywhere in the world, and yet for the theory of evolution to be true it would have had to take place many billions of times over and we would be surrounded with examples. Since the book is supporting Darwin, one has to assume when it says in the above quote that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming it is referring to evolution producing different kinds of living things rather than the kind of change described in the notes, above right, which is fully accepted by main-stream creationists.

Page 9: “But only, it seems, in scientific circles. According to a recent, detailed quantitative research study commissioned by Theos and conducted by the polling company ComRes, only 37% of people in the UK believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “beyond reasonable doubt”; 32% says that Young Earth Creationism (“the idea that God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years”) is either definitely or probably true…”

From the first words in the above quote we are given the impression that it is an argument between scientists (who know the facts) and the rest (who are ignorant of them): a notion that is patently untrue, as can be seen in the numerous ID/Young Earth Creationist books and web sites produced and contributed to by scientists. This is a common evolutionist tactic: claiming evolution is science while creation is not. The truth of the matter is that evolution and creation are two different interpretations of the scientific facts, with respected scientists on both sides. The question therefore is: which of the two alternatives is best supported by scientific observation? We shall briefly look at the answer to that question shortly.

Page 17 (quoting Darwin): I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars...

David Attenborough, the atheistic naturalist, has made an identical error regarding a parasite that burrows into the eye, creating pain and blindness. This is a straw man argument,* incredible coming from the lips of those whose belief is that living creatures have constantly and radically changed over and over again, while at the same time claiming Darwin’s Ichneumonidae and Attenborough’s parasite have always been the same! How inconsistent can you be?

* A straw man argument is the distortion of an opponent’s belief in order to counter it easily.

The Bible makes it very clear that God did not create creatures to live in this way. The fall of Adam cut off the vital link the whole creation had with God, with mutation and death following as a result. Creatures that previously had been vegetarian, now turned on each other for food. Boundaries of protection were now broken: for example, bacteria in the ground, essential to break down dead vegetation etc. and create fertility, if allowed entrance into the human bloodstream (e.g. through an open wound) can become a serious disease. Contrary to the similar evolutionary straw man argument that creationists believe all living things have always remained the same, the Bible teaches there has been a radical change since the creation. The combination of natural selection and mutation, reacting to an environment very different from the one God created, while incapable of producing new kinds of creatures, has nevertheless resulted in massive change and huge variety within the original ‘kinds’ that God made.

However, the theistic evolution theory promoted by Rescuing Darwin has no answer to this criticism of Attenborough and Darwin. If God has created all things by means of evolution, then He is controlling mutation, which is the only means whereby DNA can be changed significantly; and therefore He is responsible for these abominations. God said His creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). If what we see now is what He created, and suffering and death is therefore ‘very good’, then why does He intend to eradicate them in future, calling death an “enemy?” (1 Corinthians 15:26; Revelation 21:4)

Page 30: “Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design may be relatively recent phenomena in the US, but they are even more recent in the UK

Demonstrably untrue! Young Earth Creationism, while not necessarily going under that name, has been taught in main-stream Christian Churches for as long as they have existed! It is quite obviously the logical result of a literal reading of the Bible, and Christians have accepted the Bible as the literal revelation of God ever since the founding of the Church. This rewriting of history appears several times in Rescuing Darwin, presumably in an attempt to give Theistic Evolution some credibility.

Page 37 …the view of Young Earth Creationists who take the early chapters of Genesis to be a literal and scientifically-accurate account of creation, but is thoroughly dismissed by serious theologians and philosophers. It is “a kind of category mistake” as Rowan Williams has called it, treating the Bible [as if it] were a theory like other theories. It’s not as if the writer of Genesis… sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all this… I know “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Quote from Rowans Williams interview)

This is a typical evolutionary tactic: cast doubt on the intelligence and knowledge of the opposition. It does, however, bring us to the key question: what is Christian teaching? The answer must surely be obvious: it is that which Jesus Christ taught. What did He teach? Since He did not leave any writings of His own, the only way to know is to read the writings of His followers, who were taught by their Master. Since the entire New Testament was written by those taught by Jesus Christ* it is clear that only teaching in line with what is found there can be called ‘Christian’.

* Including Paul: taught by Jesus (Gal 1:12), born ‘out of due time’ (1 Cor 15:8) and validated by the other apostles (Gal 2:2,9; 2 Pet 3:15); and his teaching was the word of God (1 Thess 2:13).

* Contrary to earlier claims that parts of the New Testament were written decades, or even centuries, after the death of the apostles, all the books are now proven beyond dispute to have been written within their lifetime.

** See here for the evidence.

Preferring the theories of writers living centuries, or millennia, after the books of the New Testament were written* is obvious nonsense. How can those living 100s or 1000s of years after Jesus Christ know better what He taught than those who accompanied Him during His ministry? Rescuing Darwin quotes various notable Church leaders of the past in an attempt to give the appearance that young-Earth creationism is both recent and a minority Christian belief. In fact the reverse is the case,** typified by the work of Bishop Usher, whose dating of the creation week as being 4004 BC is still quoted in many Bibles.

A thorough reading of the New Testament makes it very obvious that both Jesus and His followers considered the Old Testament writings the authoritative revelation of God’s word. Indeed, throughout the New Testament the Old Testament is quoted as being literal truth and there is no example anywhere of its validity being doubted. For example, we are told it was the Holy Spirit speaking through the mouth of David in his Psalms:

Acts 1:16 "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas…

Acts 4:24–25 …"Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, and the people plot vain things?...

This tells us two things: [1] since it is impossible that David could have worked out for himself what was going to happen in the future, his words must have come from God; [2] the Psalms of David were not merely poetry but also included prophecy. Therefore the notion that the Old Testament is a mixture of truth and man-made theories is quite clearly shown to be false - and this by people who, when writing the books of the New Testament, were [a] themselves speaking by the Holy Spirit and [b] repeating what Jesus had told them.

God spoke to the fathers by the prophets (Hebrews 1:1). Paul believed everything written in the law and the prophets (Acts 24.14). Moses is mentioned 80 times in the New Testament; and in the teaching of both Jesus (e.g. Mark 12:26) and the apostles (e.g. Acts 3:22) it is clear they accepted his writing as authoritative and God’s word.* Intellectuals may dispute the authorship of Genesis, but it is clear that the New Testament writers accepted Moses as responsible, and in any case there can be no dispute regarding who was responsible for the law, there being at least 42 references to it. As we shall see later, a literal six-day creation is included in Moses’ law.

* And in Numbers 12:6–8 Moses reports God saying that He spoke to him plainly, not in ‘dark sayings’. Therefore His words in the early chapters of Genesis and Exodus 20:9–11; 31:17, for example, are intended to be taken at face value.

Adam is mentioned seven times in the New Testament as the literal first ancestor of the entire human race (Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 1 Timothy 2:13, 14; Jude 1:14). Death is the result of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12): impossible if millions of years of evolution and death preceded the human race! The whole of creation groans under the weight of suffering as a result of Adam’s fall, longing for the restoration which is to come (Romans 8:22).

Both Jesus and Peter taught that there was a literal world-wide flood, from which only Noah and his family escaped (Matthew 24:38–39; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6–7). The flood and its aftermath were responsible for the fossil record, the geology we see around us and the ice age (which lasted hundreds, not millions of years).

As Rowan Williams says in the above quote, the Bible is “not a theory like other theories” for the simple reason that the writer of Genesis did not say “how am I going to explain all this…” because God told him what to put! Indeed, a Jewish tradition going back thousands of years is that God did not merely tell Moses what to write, but dictated it to him letter by letter.

Therefore anything conflicting with the clear teaching of the whole Bible, while it may certainly be religious, is not Christian in the true sense of the word, since it contradicts the teaching of Christ.* It is immediately apparent that Rescuing Darwin, while no doubt satisfying to intellectuals who prefer a pick-and-mix ‘designer religion’ to satisfy their own preconceived ideas, fundamentally opposes key New Testament teachings.

There are many ways of viewing the Bible, but probably the three keys ones are:

• It is irrelevant: just one religious book among many giving conflicting accounts of the unscientific and unprovable existence of the supernatural.
• It is a collection of books giving the opinions of people who had some experience of God, which therefore may or may not be accurate.
• It is the inspired, reliable revelation of truth given by God to men.

* This is not to say that therefore anyone accepting the theory of evolution is not a Christian, of course. Both Jesus and Peter said a Christian was someone who had born again (John 3:3, 7; 1 Peter 1:23), while on the day of Pentecost Peter said the requirement was repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). Paul said it was confessing Jesus with the mouth and believing His resurrection in the heart (Romans 10:9). When Paul and Silas said if you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ you will be saved (Acts 16:31) they made the only requirement for being a Christian clear. However, how a person can square the circle of calling Jesus “Lord,” while denying some of His teaching, is something I leave to the ‘Christian evolutionist’ to explain!

Of these, the first was believed by Darwin, the second is clearly believed by the authors of Rescuing Darwin, but the third has been accepted by the Christian Church for the whole of its existence. So for centuries, every week Christians have said, “He has spoken through the prophets” as a part of their creed: meaningless if the prophets’ words are a mixture of truth and error and therefore impossible for ‘the common man’ to know which is which! Amongst the 39 articles we read:

I. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. *

* Emphasis mine.

Is the Creator God so powerless as to be unable to transmit accurately His word to His creation? Is the God who has chosen the ‘foolish things of the world’ to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27) going to give them His revelation in a format that only ‘the wise’ can accurately understand?* To take a pick-and-mix attitude to the Bible, the sole definitive source of the Christian faith, including the Old Testament that Jesus Christ clearly considered to be Divine revelation, on the basis of mere human intellect (Isaiah 55:8–9), is illogical and self-contradictory. Either God exists or He does not; either He has revealed His truth to us or He has not. So be consistent: either accept it or reject it!

Page 42: “ID has none of the characteristics that make it recognisable as science. The purpose of scientific theories in biology is to explain the relationship between all the materials that comprise living matter. Scientific theories must be testable. …ID fails to count as science by these criteria. …labelling a biological entity as “designed” leads to no experimental programme that could be utilised to test the hypothesis, a fact which presumably explains the lack of scientific publications arising from ID writers.”

* In fact God makes clear His derision for human intelligence that thinks it knows better than He:

Isaiah 29:13–14 And so the Lord says, “These people say they are Mine. They honour Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. And their worship of Me is nothing but man-made rules learned by rote. Because of this, I will once again astound these hypocrites with amazing wonders. The wisdom of the wise will pass away, and the intelligence of the intelligent will disappear.” (NLT)

It is perfectly true that scientific theories must be testable, although perhaps a better word would be ‘falsifiable’. However the claim that evolution is falsifiable while ID is not, is patently untrue. Evolution of species requires that the process began by a single cell spontaneously emerging from the primordial soup. This one-off event has never been observed and no-one can even begin to explain how it could occur. It is therefore untestable, unfalsifiable and by the Rescuing Darwin definition in the above paragraph, unscientific.

Evolution of species requires genetic mutations or some other kind of evolutionary processes that can be seen to increase the information in the genome,* taking place billions of times over in order for the gradual changes to take place to produce all living things. This cannot be seen, either in the fossil record or in any living things around us today. So once again, it fails the test of true science by the Rescuing Darwin definition.

* See here for more detail on the increase of specified complexity in the genome.

On the other hand, if ID/creationism were true, then inanimate matter would not be able spontaneously to turn into a living cell, and there would be no examples of genetic mutation or some other kind of evolutionary process that could be seen to increase the information in the genome. So in both cases it is testable and falsifiable, and in both cases can be seen to be valid. The requirements of evolution and creation are diametrically opposite in these two key areas, and in both cases observation proves evolution to be unsupported.

Finally on this quote, either the authors do not know their subject or they are deliberately lying: there are many scientific publications arising from ID writers (assuming one includes young-Earth Creationists in that general title). Indeed, some of them are listed in Rescuing Darwin!

Page 42: “…the suggestion that it is possible to define certain biological entities as “irreducibly complex” in a meaningful fashion. In reality it just isn’t possible.”

Michael Behe has done just this, and thus far no-one has been able to disprove his examples of irreducible complexity.

Page 42: “What we have in ID is the “fallacy of large numbers”: as soon as you have a multi-component system, then the chances of it coming into being all at once as a fully functional system are remotely small. But of course, no biologist thinks that’s how evolution works. Evolution works incrementally.”

Thus far no biologist has been able to produces specimens in which irreducibly complex systems can be seen to be appearing incrementally. Therefore the only other alternative is for them to appear all at once. Since by the authors of Rescuing Darwin own statement the chances of this ever taking place are remotely small, the theory of evolution is demonstrably an unscientific belief system.

For example, DNA requires proteins in order for the information contained within it to be utilised, without which this information has no function. Proteins require the information in DNA in order to be produced. This is one of many ‘chicken and egg’ problems evolutionists are unable to solve. How could such a system appear ‘incrementally’?

DNA alone is useless: in order for its information to be used, by a highly sophisticated complex series of processes it has to be translated into RNA and the result used to produce the ‘machinery’ necessary for life. This too could never appear ‘incrementally’: if just one element out of the many were missing or incomplete, the whole process would not work.

In fact even the simplest single-cell organism capable of reproduction is so highly complex, it is impossible to conjecture how incremental change could have produced it.

So scientific observation of the way life works disproves the basic requirements of evolution and demonstrates it could only have begun as a result of ID/creation.

Page 43: “Behe’s ID book Darwin’s Black Box provides many supposed examples of “irreducible complexity” but many of these supposed “gaps” have in fact already been filled in the decade since his book appeared.”

Really? Prove it! This is more elephant hurling. Where is the evidence? *

Page 51: “Genesis 1–3 is no more a “scientific” account of how life developed, than the Torah is a study of ethical origins, the gospels a theological defence of miracles, or religion itself an “explanation for facts about the universe and life.””

* In The Edge of Evolution, he exposes the complete inadequacy of evolutionists to respond to his earlier book, Darwin’s Black Box.

This old chestnut has been answered so many times I am amazed it appears here yet again! Of course Genesis is not ‘a scientific account’: if it were it would be full of formulae, etc. But this does not mean it is untrue. If it is what is claimed in scripture (i.e. the revelation of God), then it comes into a category all of its own; however the nearest description we have for Genesis would be ‘a historical account’. As such one would not expect scientific explanations, but would certainly expect accuracy. For example a history book may tell us about the wide-scale death and destruction at Hiroshima in 1945. The fact it gives no scientific explanation regarding how an atomic weapon works does not therefore prove a bomb explosion at Hiroshima did not cause death and destruction in this way, or that the book is inaccurate.

Likewise, while we are not told the processes involved in creation, we are certainly told in the first two chapters of Genesis they came about by God’s spoken word over a period of six days. This is verified in Exodus 20:9–11; 31:17, the former being the only passage in the Old Testament actually written by God Himself (Exodus 31:18; 32:16). If the authors of Rescuing Darwin are correct, either God was lying, or He didn’t know how it all happened: which is it? Deuteronomy 4:32 talks about the ‘days that are past’, clearly referring to 24-hour days, and then tells us about ‘the day that God created man on the earth’: obviously saying man’s appearance was accomplished in a single day, not over a period of millions of years. It is confirmed in the New Testament at Hebrews 4:3–4,* for example, which is obviously taking the days as literal 24-hour periods.

* Hebrews 4:3–4 For only we who believe can enter His rest. As for the others, God said, "In My anger I took an oath: 'They will never enter My place of rest,'" even though this rest has been ready since He made the world. We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: "On the seventh day God rested from all His work." (NLT)

The Hebrew word for ‘first’ in Genesis 1:5 is 'echad’, which elsewhere is translated ‘one’. E.g. Genesis 1:9; 2:21, with Gen 1:9 referring to “one place” and Gen 2:21 to “one rib.” Therefore Gen 1:5 could be viewed as defining what ‘one day’ actually means: evening and morning = one day. The Hebrew word for ‘first’, meaning first in order or priority, is  ‘ri'shon’, found in Genesis 25:25; 26:1, for example. While it is true that echad is sometimes used to define the first in order (e.g. Genesis 8:5), in English translations it is very frequently translated ‘one’ rather than ‘first’. So there is a strong case for arguing that in describing the creation week, the first evening and morning are used to define what is meant throughout the rest of the week by ‘day’. This then destroys any notion that ‘day’ can refer to a long period of time in this passage.

Regarding Exodus 20:9–11, the only way the theistic evolutionist can interpret this passage to make it remain consistent with his theory is to claim the six days in which God worked in creating everything, and therefore the one day of rest, are not 24-hour periods, but long lengths of time. However, this is simply inconsistent with what it says.* To paraphrase the key part, God is saying that He blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy because that was the period of time in which He rested. The day in which mankind was told to rest was the Sabbath day: they were told to rest during the time period God had blessed. The Jewish Sabbath has been the 24-hour period from sundown Friday evening to sundown Saturday evening ever since receiving the ten commandments. So the 24-hour period of time man was to rest is the 24-hour period that God had blessed; and He blessed it because this was the period when He rested. If the day on which God rested was a 24-hour period, then the six days in which He created everything must also have been 24-hour periods. To take any other interpretation would be to wrench the normal understanding of language and grammar out of all recognition.

*For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day He rested. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.  (NLT)

In the Hebrew language, the days of the week do not have names as they do in English. We call them Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc. In Hebrew, instead of names, the days are simply called, First day, Second day, Third day, etc. Bearing this in mind, when we read Genesis chapter one and see God says “The evening and morning were the second day,” this in Hebrew is the equivalent of us saying in English, “The evening and the morning were Monday.” This makes it crystal clear: Genesis chapter one is not talking about long periods of time when mentioning ‘days’, but days lasting twenty-four hours. Indeed, there is no example anywhere in the Bible of ‘First day’, ‘Second day’, etc., meaning anything other than a literal 24-hour period.* ‘First day’ appears 25 times in the Bible; ‘second day’, 13 times; ‘third day’, 45 times; ‘seventh day’, 50 times. It would be highly inconsistent to claim that these phrases mean millions or billions of years in Genesis chapter one, but 24 hours throughout the rest of the Bible!

Gen 1:1 says God created both the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Since the authors clearly accept the evolutionary estimate of the age of the universe (around 14 billion years) and the evolutionary age of the earth (around 4 billion years), they believe that God created the heavens and then waited about 10 billion years before creating the earth. The Bible says He created the earth in the beginning; yet taking the whole history of the universe into consideration according to the authors of Rescuing Darwin, He created the earth nearer the end than the beginning! They quite plainly have rejected the clear teaching of the Bible.

Page 55: “…Surely God would not have chosen to create by such a lengthy process as evolution, apparently random and involving so much suffering?”

The answer to this question suggested in Rescuing Darwin is given as living things needing pain to protect them from further damage; suffering and death being necessary to enable natural selection to produce the required changes for all of us to evolve; and:

“suffering does, as a matter of fact, invoke great acts of compassion and altruism, not to mention endurance on the part of the sufferer.” (Page 58)

* It has been claimed that Hosea 6:2 is an example, where it says:

“...after two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up...”

However, Bible prophecy often has two applications. For example, later in that book, Hosea 11:1 tells us,

“...out of Egypt I called my son...”,

clearly referring to the exodus of the nation of Israel out of Egypt. However Matthew 2:15 says this verse refers to Jesus, proving the point that the Hosea reference has two applications. On this basis, Hosea 6:2 is prophetic regarding the resurrection of Jesus on the third day, and therefore the word ‘day’ in this verse does refer to 24-hours. There is no example in the Bible where the word ‘day’ when linked with a number, does not refer to a 24-hour period.

This quite clearly totally contradicts foundational teaching of scripture. Suffering and death are the result of sin, as has been shown earlier: impossible if millions of years of sickness, suffering and death took place before humans emerged. God said His creation was very good (Genesis 1:31). Yet He calls death an “enemy” that will be done away for eternity (1 Corinthians 15:26). Acts 10:38 tells us that Jesus came “doing good” and healing all who were oppressed of the devil. Since there is no example of anyone asking Jesus for healing and not receiving it, this demonstrates that sickness is the work of the devil and not God’s perfect will for us. If ‘doing good’ is removing sickness and even death (on at least two occasions), then those things must be ‘bad’. Jesus said He was doing what He saw the Father doing (John 5:19), and was doing the works of the Father (John 5:36; 10:32, 37). If removing sickness and death was what the Father was doing, which according to Rescuing Darwin are God’s will for us to have, how could He be doing what He didn’t want? It makes nonsense of the whole thing!

Page 56: “…compound and camera eyes taken together have evolved more than 20 different times during the course of evolution. If you live in a planet of light and darkness, then you need eyes – so eyes are what you’re going to get. Similarly wings, legs, claws, teeth, brains, and much else besides have evolved time and time and time again.”

More elephant hurling! Prove it. Where is the evidence for all these occasions of eyes, legs, claws, etc. evolving? Where are all the examples of creatures at the billions of part-way stages required for “evolution to work incrementally” and produce the many different kinds of eyes, legs, claws and all the different features found in millions of different kinds of living things? There is not one single example in existence. Without evidence this claim is untestable, unfalsifiable and unscientific, and the authors have nothing other than their unsupported theory to show otherwise.

Page 58: “For Christians, that understanding of life and of God is derived supremely from the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Exactly! So why do you not accept His teachings? The notion that God created all things by means of evolution of species is a denial of His Omnipotence: by definition it claims that he was incapable of accurately transmitting His truth to mankind. It claims, contrary to Rowan Williams’ description that treating the Bible as if it were a theory like other theories is a ‘category mistake’, that the books of the Bible are simply the opinions of people from the past, and therefore eligible to be picked over, accepted or dismissed to suit our own preconceived ideas.

This is the mind-set of those intellectuals who are, to quote 2 Timothy 3:5:

 “having a form of godliness but denying its power…,”

and is probably the reason God has said He

“...has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty”
(1 Corinthians 1:27.)

When these clever people undermine the clear revelation of God it is not surprising He replies:

“He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the LORD shall hold them in derision.” (Psalm 2:4.)

There is much more one could pick out to counter in Rescuing Darwin, but probably enough has been said. Their survey tells us that around one-third of the UK population accept Creation as a valid explanation for our origins. I trust that in this response there is enough to show they have very good reason for doing so. There is no doubt in my mind that if the evolution-obsessed media and education establishments of the UK did not have the stranglehold on the dissemination of information that they do, resulting in the mass-bombardment of evolutionary dogma obliterating all else and distorting Biblical creationist teaching, then there would be very many more people joining that one-third in acknowledging their Creator as the reason for their existence.

TOP