Evolution
Introduction
The philosophy of “Darwinism” or “Evolution” has been one of the most persistent and aggressive schools of thought in the 20th century. While some of its supporters have recently revised their theories in the face of the sheer lack of evidence its most forceful advocates show little sign of retreat as we are entered upon a new millennium. These “prophets” of the movement regularly occupy the modern “pulpits” of television and the other national media, proclaiming their slender theories as though they were established fact.
Although these spokesmen adopt the garb of the scientist, the truth is that what they promote is not science but a religion – one which has done incalculable harm to the best interests of mankind.
This analysis of the theory of evolution as it opposes the Biblical doctrine of creation is in three parts. In the first we compare the respective beliefs of Creation and Evolution and see which has the best support from basic scientific fact. In the second we present some of the evidence, Biblical and scientific, for the young age of the universe and especially of life on earth. In the third and final part we look at a number of examples from the living world which witness for creation and against evolution, ending with a brief list of some useful introductory literature and Christian creationist bodies.
Part 1. The Conflict
Is this a question which exercises you – whether the Bible’s account of the origin of all things is accurate or whether modern discoveries have disproved the sacred record? Many professing Christians avoid this vital conflict, believing that they have neither the knowledge nor the ability to challenge the confident and clever men from the observatories and laboratories. But can we afford to relax or halt between two opinions? While the arguments against evolution and for creation will never of themselves persuade men to believe in Christ, they may provide strength and support for believers and strengthen them in their testimony to the truth. And the details are not impossible to understand.
Importance of the Subject
What we believe about our origins inevitably affects how we live – and how we die. It decides for us whether we will acknowledge an absolute authority or no ultimate authority. Belief in a Creator leads to a sense of responsibility: we are duty bound to obey His word and laws. If we lose conscience of a Creator, we lose conscience of an absolute standard: the Ten Commandments. We lose a sense of purpose and destiny too. We have witnessed this century the development of abortion, euthanasia, communism, racism, etc., as a consequence of the rise of the evolution theory. Absolute authority has now been replaced by the will of the majority (which is subject to change) and increasingly by personal ethics (or, “what’s right for me”).
If man’s accountability to God is removed, then the gospel is seriously undermined: the credibility of the Bible obviously goes if evolution is true (we can no longer accept the opening chapters of Genesis as historical fact) but the relevance of the gospel is lost too: does a man need to consider repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ if he is not taught the reality of a Divine lawgiver in whose sight he is a transgressor and a rebel?
Defining the Terms
1. Evolution. Our English word comes from the Latin evolvere – “to roll out.” The idea is that of to unroll, to unfold or change. A person “evolves” from a baby to an adult. But modern science uses the word to refer to the idea that the present universe has developed from simple forms of matter over vast ages. Especially it is used to refer to biological evolution – the progress from very simple life forms (e.g. the simple cell) to the very complex (e.g. man). Charles Darwin’s influential work was entitled, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.”
2. Creation. The Shorter Catechism Q.9 asks: What is the work of creation? A. The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good. Hebrews 11:3 states: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Each thing therefore was made complete at the beginning: there was no process of development from pre-existing matter.
3. Science. Our noun is from the Latin verb scrire – “to know.” In the Authorised Version there are two occurrences of the word “science” – one in each Testament. In Daniel 1:4 the word occurs as the last of a triplet of words with a similar meaning, “wisdom...knowledge...science.”
In 1 Timothy 6:20 we read: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called.” The underlying Greek word here is gnosis – which everywhere else is translated “knowledge.” So in the Scriptures “science” refers to something broader than the science of the laboratory. Paul warns Timothy to avoid the “oppositions” of this science – literally the “antitheses”; there were those holding to a theological system which was diametrically opposed to the gospel, teaching a legalism not grace. It was “knowledge falsely-named,” because it was not true knowledge at all.
Science as we use the term today deals with material phenomena and is based on the method of observation, experimentation and induction. We are thinking of the disciplines of chemistry, physics, biology, etc., the natural or physical sciences. These are perfectly valid in investigating events which are occurring today. For example, perhaps there is an outbreak of some mysterious disease. It is discovered that those who show the symptoms have all eaten the same foodstuff. The theory is developed that the disease has spread from this contaminated source. Experiments are conducted to test this hypothesis and the results lead into a conclusion regarding the original theory.
The point is that the scientific method is valid here: it can properly be used to establish the facts, because in this case it is dealing with things happening here and now which can be observed, measured, tested. Even then we often see how limited the method may be!
Two Faiths
The debate between creation and evolution is often presented as though it were a conflict between religion and science. NO! It is a conflict between two faiths. The question of origins cannot be investigated and determined by science because of course it involves events which were not observed by man. As the Lord says to Job: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” (Job 38:4). So evolution is not even a theory in the proper scientific sense. Scientific integrity has suffered enormously because of evolution. There are the proven frauds such as Piltdown Man from Sussex and speculative reconstructions based perhaps on a few bones and teeth. Science has never and will never prove or disprove creation or demonstrate Darwinian evolution. The truth is that we do not believe in God because we have apprehended Him by our five physical senses and neither do we believe in creation because we have proved it, but because we believe the Scriptures – Hebrews 11:3. The Bible is our evidence. Through regeneration we are biased in favour of God and His Holy Word. All men are biased one way or another (Rom. 8:7; Matt. 12:30). There are not really any neutrals. It is a question of which bias is the correct one to have.
What place then does science have here? We can show that:
1) Creation is in agreement with basic scientific facts.
2) Evolution is opposed to basic scientific facts.
Creation is the work of the Triune God – e.g. Genesis 1:26,27; Psalm 33:6.
Evolution too has its “trinity.” It teaches that Matter/energy + Time + Chance = everything
Which of these doctrines fits the facts of science? There are what we call laws of science. God is a God of order and He has established principles in His creation. He is not of course subject to these laws Himself, and may suspend them in the creation, but in general the universe is governed by them and life in it, and this makes research, measurement and calculation possible. Unbelieving men may not acknowledge these things as from God, but they recognise scientific laws. The law of gravity is one law we are confronted with daily.
Three very important scientific laws are the Laws of Thermodynamics. These govern the relation between heat and other energy forms. We may see that, judged by these rules, evolution’s “trinity” is incapable of explaining the universe, and that special creation is the only adequate cause.
Laws of Thermodynamics
First Law: Matter or energy may be converted from one form to another but cannot be created or destroyed: it is constant. This is termed the Law of Conservation. If wood is burned, in the presence of oxygen, its matter is not destroyed but converted into ash and gases, with the production of heat. A thing may be reduced to its smallest building blocks, to molecules: these may be reduced to their atoms; atoms may even be split, as in a nuclear reactor – the “atomic explosion” – to give protons, neutrons, electrons. But there it ends: these particles cannot be made or destroyed.
The evolutionist has a problem: there is nothing in the universe capable of bringing the universe into being. He must say that the universe has always existed, that matter is eternal. But every effect has a cause: the fact of the universe needs an adequate explanation; it could not create itself. The so-called “Big Bang” theory of the universe’s origin violates this First Law because it requires the creation of something out of nothing.
What is an adequate first cause for the universe? The universe consists of space, time and matter/energy:
The Cause of space must be something greater than space, i.e. something infinite.
The Cause of time must be something greater than time, i.e. something eternal.
The Cause of matter/energy must be something greater than energy, i.e. something omnipotent.
Therefore the only adequate explanation for the universe is something (or someone) infinite, eternal and all-powerful.
Second Law: Natural processes move from order to disorder with time and useful energy decreases. This is the Law of Entropy. The universe is like a clock winding down. Given time a piece of wood will rot and disintegrate, becoming useless even for burning. Death, decay and erosion are seen everywhere on the earth. Metal rusts; nothing seems to be immune: even silver and gold are “corruptible things” according to Scripture (1 Pet. 1:18). The whole creation is in bondage to corruption (Rom. 8:21).
The Big Bang theory violates this Law because explosions do not produce order but disorder. Our complex universe with suns, stars and planets occupying precise orbits could hardly be produced by an explosion! The earth orbits at a crucial distance from the sun: closer it would be too hot for life, farther away too cold.
The theory of evolution is also contrary to this Second Law, for it goes in the opposite direction. It states that life has ascended from the very simple cell through the fish, amphibian, reptilian and other life forms all the way to the very complex human brain. In contrast the Bible is the account of Generation (Gen. 1-2) and then Degeneration (Gen. 3) over time. Sin entered the creation and death and decay followed. Scripture teaches the need for the Regeneration of all material things, which will take place only at the return of Jesus Christ (Matt. 19:28; Acts 3:21; Rom. 8:21).
In Genesis chapter one we learn of the fixity of the “kinds” ten times. Crosses between species are generally infertile, which means that evolution can proceed no further: the mule, which is the offspring of a horse and a donkey, is infertile.
Third Law: If raw energy is added to an open system the order is reduced. This is the Law of Information. When fire is introduced into a forest it produces only destruction.
It has been thought that the energy from the sun and electrical storms working randomly over time would eventually produce proteins and then primitive life forms from the chemicals present – the so-called “primeval soup.” But raw power will never work this way. As has been said, a bull has a lot of energy, but let it loose in a china shop and it produces only chaos!
When power is accompanied by intelligence then advance is possible. An architect’s plan is necessary to direct the construction of a house. A tiny seed grows into a great tree only because genetic information (known as DNA) is contained in the original seed which directs energy (minerals, water, sunlight, carbon dioxide) in the right way to produce development.
Chance is no explanation for what we see all around us – order, design and beauty. Energy on its own is purposeless: intelligence must also be involved. Does this not indicate an amazing, wonderful mind behind our universe?
“O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.” – Psalm 104:24.
Part 2. The Age of the Earth
Does it really matter what we believe concerning the age of the universe? Whether the earth is billions or only thousands of years old? Obviously the theory of evolution – the doctrine that all present life forms, including man, have developed gradually from simple proteins – needs a very old earth if it is true. In our schools, colleges and the media the assumption is of a universe of extraordinary age: one might be forgiven for thinking that this assertion must rest on a great mass of accumulated evidence. On the contrary, many facts favour a young earth.
The prevalence of the evolutionary idea is a hindrance to many when they encounter the Bible’s teaching of a six-day creation. Given that Genesis 1 reads to the ordinary man as if the “days” are days as we know them, there is bound to be an added resistance to the gospel in the person who has already accepted evolution’s belief of life developed over millions of years: his presupposition clashes with the clear testimony of Scripture.
It is therefore helpful to learn that there is much evidence from science as well as the Bible to counter evolution by supporting belief in a relatively recent universe.
Gap Theory
It has been suggested that there is a time period or “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This theory seems to have arisen last century at least partly in an attempt to reconcile the Bible with modern geological views. Genesis 1:1 is said to describe the original creation which was perfect: then something went wrong and the vast geological ages occurred, leading to the fossil record. God destroyed this universe, which had become “without form, and void” and then engaged in six days of re-creation.
The idea hinges on the translation and interpretation of Genesis 1:2 that the earth became, not was, “without form, and void.” Yet in only a handful of its more than one thousand occurrences can this simple Hebrew verb be rendered “become.” The context here indicates a view of the earth before the Creator began His work of bringing order to what He had made.
Necessary to this theory is that there was death in the animal kingdom, such that the fossils could be laid down, before the arrival of man. In the Bible however the link is made between Adam’s sin and the entrance of death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12,19; 6:23); the creation is only cursed because of the rebellion of its earthly head (Gen. 3:17; Rom. 8:19-21).
Theistic Evolution
It is appropriate to mention here the “hybrid” belief held by some which is known as Theistic Evolution. Some insist that God was the author of the “Big Bang” – the supposed explosion of the original atom which led to the formation of stars, galaxies and much later the earth. But the Bible says that the heavens and the earth were created together – “in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1). Essentially the theory says that God used evolution as a means of creation. As with the “Gap” theory the origin of man is thought to be far down the chronological or evolutionary line. It is thought that through the process of evolution, a particular species of ape developed to the extent that it was capable of serving the purpose God intended for man. He then gave it a soul capable of relating to Himself. Some say that the several “races” of mankind arose in different places at different times through different types of primate.
If God used evolution as a means of creation, then He would not have made all things very good, but would have used suffering, death and decay to achieve His purpose. The fossil deposits would not then be the record of the Flood, but of generations of struggle and survival of the fittest before man appeared. It is an unbelieving theory: theologians are afraid of being thought of as “unscientific,” and so they accept the ideas of secular science. But to do this means that the opening chapters of Genesis must be deemed to be allegorical or mythological.
Other portions of Scripture are set at nought too. In contrast to the uncertain and confused origin of mankind which is described by theistic evolution, the Bible throughout plainly teaches the divine creation and the biological, organic unity of the human race. Paul preached to the philosophical but superstitious Athenians that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Theistic Evolution sacrifices the glory of God to gain the approval of fallen man: it presents a view of God as inefficient, even malevolent.
The Six Days
Whether the six days of Genesis 1 are literal, twenty-four hour days is much debated. We need only say that, according to the law of first mention, we should normally understand a “day” in Scripture to consist of an “evening” and a “morning” (Gen. 1:5) and that when a numeral is attached to the word the reference is always to a solar day and not a longer period of time.
In the Beginning
Typically evolutionists say that the universe is from 4-5 billion years old, that life itself is from 0.6-1 billion years old and man himself from 1-2 million years old. This suggests an extensive elapse of time from the origin of the universe until the appearance of the first primitive life and then another lengthy period before man arises; in fact the human race has been in existence for only a tiny fraction of the whole of time.
There are verses in the Bible however, which, though often overlooked, place the origin of man at the outset of God’s work of creation – which could not be the case if the six days were immense periods of time. The following are texts which suggest that the creation of man was very close to the beginning of the creation itself:
Isa. 40:21– “Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?”
Isa. 64:4 – “For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.”
Matt. 19:4 – “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female?”
Mark 10:6 – “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”
John 9:32 – “Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.”
Population of the Earth
If the population of the earth has increased at roughly the same rate since man first appeared, then what ought it to be by now? If man has been around for 1 million years, the earth would have been overpopulated many times! Even if the age of mankind was only 100,000 years the earth’s resources would have long since been consumed. We wonder, where are the remains of these huge populations and their cultures?
The present total population of over 5,000 million with its current rate of increase (doubling about every twenty years) is in fact consistent with a starting population of eight people just 4-5,000 years ago – i.e. Noah and his family after the Flood (Gen. 7:7; 1 Pet. 3:20). It is probable that millions perished in what was a universal deluge (Gen. 7:19-22).
Uniformitarianism
Modern science, particularly geology, proceeds largely upon the assumption of “uniformitarianism,” as enunciated in 2 Peter 3:4: “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” – i.e. since the Big Bang the various processes at work in the universe have continued at the same rate. This is a wrong and dangerous assumption, for it ignores the cataclysm of the Flood (vv.5,6) with its profound implications for geology, biology and other disciplines. But even making this assumption it can be seen from the following examples that the observable data support a young universe rather than an ancient one.
Comets
We are familiar with Halley’s Comet, the appearance of which has often been recorded during human history. Such are known as short-period comets because their elliptical orbit of the sun is about 100 years rather than the thousands of years of long-period ones. These short-period comets may be visible to the naked eye when they approach nearest the sun because they are slowly disintegrating: the emission of the sun’s rays removes material from the head to produce the characteristic “tail” and therefore they cannot continue much more than 10,000 years – suggesting that the age of our solar system is less than that.
Cosmic Dust
Meteoric dust falls continually to the surface of other bodies and we may assume that on the moon it has fallen and lain undisturbed. When men were first being sent to the moon there was concern regarding the landing of their craft, for if this dust had fallen at the present rate for 4-5 billion years then the layer would be over 50 feet thick. The Apollo landings showed just a fraction of an inch of dust – a depth consistent with an age for the universe of less than 10,000 years.
Radiocarbon
Radiation reaches the earth’s surface, although much that is harmful is excluded by our atmosphere. Some nitrogen is changed by radiation into a radioactive form of carbon (known as Carbon 14). Living organisms require this basic element and so also absorb the radioactive form; when they die this form begins to decay at a known rate, enabling scientists to calculate the date of death. Many specimens have been dated by this method at a few thousand years at most.
Other specimens however are found to contain extremely low amounts of Carbon 14 – hardly measurable above the background. We would expect this from our knowledge of Scripture: before the Flood the earth was apparently covered by a canopy of water vapour (Gen. 1:7) which would have kept out radiation and prevented the formation of radioactive carbon. Therefore fossils laid down before or during the Flood would have minimal Carbon 14. This would not be evidence of a great age but of the great difference made to the earth’s climate by the Flood and what followed: this example shows the need to view science in Scripture light if we are to avoid mistaken conclusions.
The above is a but a sample of matters worthy of further exploration in the literature available: the Bible and true science are not in conflict – both point to a young creation.
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” – Exodus 20:11.
Part 3. The Evidence Around Us
What can we find in the living world around us to demonstrate the evolutionary fallacy? What evidence is there from animal and plant kingdoms? There are literally countless facts to which we could refer.
Complexity of Life
A living organism is a complex, highly organised thing, capable of the essential functions of feeding and reproduction: it may also have abilities of locomotion, communication and so on, with features specially suited to these tasks. Have we ever realised though that a single cell, millions of which may make up an adult living organism, is itself an incredibly complex structure? Within its walls there is the equivalent of an efficient, automated factory, with components and mechanisms enabling it to perform whatever function in the body is intended for it. Proteins are the basic building blocks of the simplest cells, but even they are very complex associations of different molecules. The odds against the atoms necessary to make one molecule of the simplest protein coming together by chance are great indeed. Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, no believer but an opponent of evolutionary assumptions, wrote in The Intelligent Universe:
“Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve the Rubik cube (a well-known puzzle game). The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body’s 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly by chance.”
The rich variety of plants and animals, of which man is a part, simply cannot have been produced by chance but only by design.
‘Living’ Fossils
The fossil record, often cited as giving great weight to the evolutionary theory, is in fact a major weakness in its whole argument. (Fossils are remains or traces of animals and plants preserved in sedimentary rocks.) If one species evolves into another, as evolution claims, through gradual, imperceptible, changes over time, we would expect to encounter intermediate forms in the fossil record: organisms that are part one species and part another. Darwin believed that in time the rocks would yield up the missing links between the different species in the evolutionary chain.
In contrast, no definite intermediate forms have been found among the fossils. Moreover, life forms preserved in rocks said to be millions of years old can have living representatives today. The scientific world was startled in the 1930’s when nets brought up a strange fish from the Indian Ocean: the coelacanth was a species thought to have become extinct 60 million years earlier; yet the fish showed no significant change from the fossils. Evolution teaches that the limbed creatures, starting with amphibians, developed from fish and the coelacanth fossils were believed to show a species developing limbs. But specimens observed in action demonstrated fins exactly suited to an aquatic environment, enabling the species to swim in any direction.
The fossils do show many plant and animal species that no longer exist today – but they also indicate that many others which survive to the present have undergone no real change.
‘Kinds’
Darwin believed that new species arose through a process of natural selection operating in history rather than by an act of supernatural creation at the beginning of time. We do see mutation everywhere: within some species, e.g. the cat, the dog, man himself, there is a tremendous variety of colour, size, shape, even temperament; what we do not see is transmutation, the change from one species to another, different, species. “All flesh is not the same flesh” (1 Cor. 15:39): between men, beasts, fishes and birds, there is a fixed biological difference which limits interbreeding and preserves the integrity of each “kind” or class of organism spoken of in Genesis chapter one.
The range of variation of which a particular species is capable is set by what was present in the genes of the original ancestors. This is so with man, for God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth...” (Acts 17:26).
Organs
The various organs which perform vital functions in the life of a living thing, particularly the complex ones, could be of no use unless they were fully formed and functional. There are more than 40 different types of eye found in the animal species, each utilising a different sort of optical system: it is simply impossible that one type of sight mechanism changed into another by gradual improvements; the organ would have been useless to its owner during the interim.
Skills
In the same way the skills that many animals employ could hardly have been learned over many generations. A species of bird in India constructs an intricate hanging nest by stitching leaves together with grass, etc., such that it is named the Tailor-bird. Evolution says that it developed this skill over countless generations: but what happened to the eggs laid in nests made before this ability was perfected?! The species would have perished unless it had this skill at once.
Migration
A remarkable animal instinct is that of migration, particularly among bird species. Scripture refers to this: “Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming” (Jer. 8:7). Certain species annually fly thousands of miles over featureless ocean from wintering to breeding grounds and back. What can explain such a phenomenon? Must we believe that such creatures possess real intelligence? Do we not rather see the hand of a wise, powerful Creator here?
Symbiosis
This term is used to describe the relationship whereby two organisms depend on one another for survival – there being many of these. The caterpillar of the Monarch butterfly in the U.S. feeds only on a poisonous plant named Milkweed: in turn this plant needs the adult butterfly to pollinate its blooms; the plant has receptacles filled with pollen which are in just the right place to attach themselves to the legs of the butterfly as it collects nectar. The evolutionist must explain how these two species can have such an interdependent relationship when they are separated by millions of years on the evolutionary tree.
Oddities
Some organisms simply do not fit anywhere in the evolutionary tree. The Duck-billed Platypus of Australia has the bill of a bird, lays reptile eggs, yet has fur like a mammal: though it suckles its young, the female has no nipples, the milk simply drips off the hairs of her body; it has webbed and clawed feet for both swimming and burrowing, and a tail like a beaver. We may ask, What were its ancestors? It is as though the Lord brought this strange creature into being simply to confound unbelieving science!
Conclusions
There are important theological implications which flow from a belief in either special creation or evolution. Christ is “the last Adam” and His Person and work are contrasted with “the first man Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45): two heads of two covenants. If evolution is true, there is no “first” man: the species arises at different times in different places from different ancestral lines; the unity of the race is lost and covenant theology becomes meaningless. If Adam did not act in behalf of others, how in justice could Christ act as Head of His people? There is an organic unity to the human race and to Christ and His church – Heb. 2:11; Eph. 5:30-32. If no crippling “fall” occurs, no gracious redemption is needed: then man’s only problem is that he has lost knowledge; the only “salvation” required is an “enlightenment,” that we may know that we are already God’s children.
There is a parallel, drawn by Scripture itself, between creation and regeneration. Creation is mirrored in the Calvinistic view of regeneration as the sovereign act of God. In the beginning there was ‘fiat’ creation, i.e. an authoritative command of God saying “let it be done”: there were no conditions to His creative act; so in regeneration man does not fulfil any conditions; he is passive, until God speaks His recreative word in Jesus Christ.
Evolution is mirrored in Arminianism where man produces life from within himself. For faith and repentance are the actions of a living soul. We should no more believe that a dead sinner could originate the new life than that life emerged from the ‘primordial soup’ by itself: no more that a sinner must let the omnipotent God make him a new creature, than that the elements should let God fashion them into His creation in the beginning. The dust was more easily made into Adam than our fallen nature is made into a new man: in the dust there was nothing opposed to God; in sinful man everything is enmity against God, and resists His working.
Evangelism is hindered because of the prevalence of evolutionary belief. Preaching falls on deaf ears, because it comes to those convinced that there is nothing beyond this life, no need to prepare for eternity. While the truth of creation will not of itself convince a sinner to believe upon Christ, all truth is God’s truth, and we have a duty to contend for it to His greater glory.
“For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” – Romans 11:36.
Literature:
(N.B.– some literature, while good on the subject, may be less sound in matters of theology)
Barker, John, “Creation – the Bible and Science.” Gospel Standard Trust Publications, 12(b) Roundwood Lane, Harpenden, Herts., AL5 3DD, 1993, 59pp.
Rosevear, David, “Creation Science.” New Wine Press. Available from Creation Science Movement – see below.
White, A.J. Monty, “Why I believe in creation.” Evangelical Press, 12 Wooler Street, Darlington, Co. Durham, DL1 1RG, 1994, 24pp.
Organisations:
Biblical Creation Society. Details from:- Administrator, BCS, P.O. Box 22, Rugby,
Warwks., CV22 7SY.
Creation Science Foundation. Publishes Creation, suited to all, and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, aimed at those with more scientific knowledge. Contact:- P.O. Box 1427, Sevenhampton, Swindon, Wilts., SN6 7UF.
Creation Science Movement. Publishes bi-monthly journal Creation and also pamphlets by qualified individuals on specific subjects. Write to:- P.O. Box 888, Portsmouth, Hants., PO6 2AW.
