* Vladamir Lenin once said that liberty was so precious, it would have to be rationed. Don't starve yourself of the liberty of thinking through your own position.

* Perhaps you have never met the question posed above. maybe you have…but have been afraid to face its possibility. A true scientist will face all the evidence and make his decisions accordingly. If the evidence demands that he change his mind… then so be it. Otherwise we would all still believe that the earth is flat etc.,   

*Let me nail my colours to the mast and say that I believe that evolution is as much a religion as Bible Christianity and that both religions have their fair share of fundamentalists.


* Evolution is not unique in this. Creationism faces the same charge. The observation is true on both accounts.

* Science operates within a very limited sphere. Strictly speaking, it is confined to what can be repeated in a laboratory. Beyond that it cannot go and  remain pure science. The fields of philosophy give more freedom for thought and imagination than science ever will. The two should not be confused.

* Science cannot prove or disprove what happened in the beginning. It was not there. All the computer created graphics with special effects etc., in the world cannot recreate the "in the beginning" scenario. Of course, the creationist cannot scientifically prove his teaching either…but he can logically defend it. Science cannot prove him wrong, because science is out of its depth. We must look elsewhere for proof.

* Evolution and its opposite number, creationism, do not have 2 different sets of evidence. Both share the same evidence but interpret them in two different ways. The evolutionist sees evidence for a common ancestor…the creationist sees evidence for a common designer or creator. this is because both are bringing outside sources into play when interpreting the evidence.


* Although they are not formally called by these names, yet they are virtually treated as such.

* In some circles, it takes a brave man to challenge the likes of Charles Darwin (or Huxley or Dawkins) because their word is practically law. The writer of this tract has challenged the doctrines of the Pope of Rome over a number of years in the letters column in the local press with very little reply. However, when he challenged the teachings of Darwin through the same medium, a 3 month debate ensued which ran to over 30 letters being exchanged from various sources.

* Key evolution guru's have called for the stripping of all credentials of those scientists who embrace any other theory rather than evolution. In religious circles, this is known as "excommunication" The absence of the actual name does not nullify the meaning of the action.


* Namely the writings of the above men & others.

* Do you think you the evolutionists would accept you as a scientist if you abandoned the various text books, did your own experiments & declined to invoke the names of the above?

* …or said that you didn't really care whether you could quote these books or not? if not…you are looking at the hall marks of a religion.


* "With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. after having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved today, had in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (Loren Eiseley, Ph.d. (anthropology) 'The Secret Of Life' In The Immense Jouney, Random House, Ny, 1957, p.199)

* "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." (H.S. Lipson, Frs (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, Uk) 'A Physicist Looks At Evolution' Physics Bulletin, vol 31, 1980, p.138)

* "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, & biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in a special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (L. Harrison Matthews, Frs, Introduction to Darwin's The Origins of the Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971 p. xi)

* Whenever you hear an evolutionist argue that "the evidence is out there somewhere" as you constantly will…this is evolution by faith alone.

* It is correct to refer to the "dogma's" of evolution.


* Man is basically a religious being. He yearns for real answers to the big questions of life e.g. "Where did I come from?" - "Why am I here?" - "Where am i  going?" A materialistic worldview does not answer these questions but seeks to relegate their importance.

* It is not enough to dismiss the whole debate by stating that we are the product of blind random chance. That is a sheer cop out.

* The religion of the Bible teaches us that we were created by God and therefore we are accountable to him…science is not in the position either to confirm or deny this statement. an evolutionist can but he cannot speak as a scientist if he does so.

* Because evolutionists are also answerable to their Creator God, they have a vested interest in answering this question. Unfortunately for them, they choose to deny the inevitable, relying instead of repeating their creed over and over again until they believe what is in reality their own propaganda.

* Men believe evolution because it has no moral values by which to live. true, many evolutionists do lead moral & honourable lives, but this is in spite of evolution and not because of it. Where in the 'survival of the fittest' scenario are the fittest required to care for the weakest? Evolutionists have argued that it is not in the interests of the strong to suffer the weak to survive. It is no surprise to us to see that the fruit of evolution can be seen in the concentration camps of Germany or in the abortion mills dotted around the world.

* A head in the sand approach to life is best catered for by evolution.  


If you have borne with me thus far, please read on to the end. It is the faith that is built on the word of God himself i.e. the Bible.

* The Bible alone offers hope to the soul distressed by its personal guilt before God. It does not go down the cruel road of telling that soul that there is nothing to worry about. Its truth may be unpalatable at times, but it is saving in its essence.  

* The Bible teaches us that our Creator God sent his only Son into the world to die for us. His holiness, based on the soundest principles of justice, demands that sin must be punished. His mercy, without compromising his holiness, provided a way of salvation. God can be just and yet the justifier on him which believes in Jesus (Romans 3:26) The sin problem needs to be tackled - not denied. The Bible tackles it head on with answers which are immediately satisfying to the need of the hour i.e. forgiveness for our sins.

* The Bible has an answer for those who are helplessly enslaved by various vices. It declares wonderfully: Therefore if any man be in christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)  

SEE ALSO:

* Why Darwin shuddered when he thought about the human eye
* Darwin's startling confession about the Origin of the Species