EVIDENCE FOR CREATION RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTION

A rare look inside a fossilized dinosaur egg found in southern China has revealed an exquisitely preserved embryo—and evidence suggesting that some of these prehistoric creatures had even more in common with modern birds than previously thought.

WSJ.

Scientists said the embryo inside the egg, which was laid between 72 million to 66 million years ago during the Late Cretaceous period, was that of a two-legged, feathered carnivore known as an oviraptorid. They said, in a paper about the discovery published Tuesday in the journal iScience (interdisciplinary open-access journal), the embryo’s curled body position—with its back against the blunt end of the 7-inch-long egg and its head between its legs—resembles that of bird embryos.

For evolutionists, this find poses some difficult questions:

1. How could this fossilised embryo survive millions of years?

2. How come it resembles that of bird embryos today?

God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth… And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” Genesis 1:21-31

Why did God create the universe in six days? He tells us in His commandments: six days you shall work and the seventh day you will rest. It was a pattern for how He made man. We are to work as He did for six days and the seventh will be a rest and holy day which is used to remember, thank and praise our Creator.

For in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.Exodus 20:121

In the soon-coming Millennial Kingdom Jesus will reinstate this pattern for man.

MORE PROOF FOR BIBLICAL INERRANCY

Often referred to as ‘nature’s time capsule’, amber offers fascinating glimpses into the past due to the stunning level of preservation of creatures fossilized in it. It is a valuable tool in examining which history, creation or evolution, offers a better explanation of today’s world. As we will see, amber continually confounds evolution’s long war against God on multiple fronts.1

  1. See e.g. Robinson, P., Ammonite in amberCreation 42(2):44–45, 2020

This article by Peter Robinson of Creation Ministries http://www.creation.com is stunning evidence for a young earth, Noah’s Flood, and therefore Biblical inerrancy.

Background: Amber is fossilized tree resin, usually from conifer trees. Resin is part of a tree’s defence (immune) system. When the tree is damaged by animals, insects, the weather, or people, it releases the sticky resin. This plugs up the ‘wound’, which seals and sterilizes it. It prevents any insects or fungi from entering the tree through the damaged section. After oozing out, the sticky resin left exposed to the elements can degrade and weather away once it has done its job (think of a scab and intelligent design).

For the resin to become amber, it first needs to be buried, where it begins to harden and is called copal. As more heat and pressure are applied, chemical transformation occurs, completing its journey to amber. It is regularly claimed by evolutionists that amber takes millions of years to form. However, as they occasionally admit, “it’s not sure how long the process to turn resin into amber actually takes.” The following examples together show that the Bible’s history and timeline fit the facts better than the evolutionary one.

beetles
humming bird
cockroach

All of these creatures are identical to those that live today. Despite evolutionary ages of millions of years, they have not changed/evolved in any way. All three of these fantastic fossils are much better explained by the global Flood some 4,500 years ago. At the start of the Flood, forests were ripped up by the turbulent waters. As the trees travelled together, they would have smashed against one another, releasing large quantities of resin. As the extremely sticky resin can float in water it would have trapped and encased any small items that were also in the water. This explains the wide range of insects, small animals, and plant material (and sometimes marine fossils) included in it from a considerable range of environments.

The circumstances in which amber is found, and the inclusions inside, frustrate the evolutionary dogma of long ages. Such finds don’t point to tens of millions of years of evolutionary stasis, or droplets of resin falling from tree roots into a cave. They are instead like ‘God’s time capsules’, testifying to a huge catastrophic event in which large amber deposits formed—namely, the watery judgment He sent upon the earth around 4,500 years ago.

GENETIC ENTROPY LEADING TO EXTINCTION

A devastatingly powerful argument against evolution

Entropy is the universal tendency for things to run down and fall apart. Thanks, largely to the work of Dr John Sanford (renowned plant geneticist and genetic engineering pioneer from Cornell University), the same gradual process of ‘running down’ is also operating in the human gene pool.

Called genetic entropy, it is driving humanity—and all higher organisms—to the point of extinction.

The most definitive findings were published in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by Lynch.4 That paper indicates human fitness is declining at 3–5% per generation

In fact, this process, which operates more rapidly in ‘higher’ organisms,3 means that the human species could only be several thousand years old; certainly not hundreds of thousands of years, or we would have already become extinct.

This topic is not widely known, but it’s very powerful support for biblical creation. Simply put, genetic entropy means that the information content in the genome (all of our genes) is progressively declining, due to the accumulation of mutations, generation after generation.

Mutations happen in all life forms (and in viruses). In our corrupted, fallen world, the mechanisms that replicate the genetic material from one generation (or one cell division) to the next now are imperfect. Each time we have children, we inevitably pass along some mistakes that were not there before. Another source of mutation is environmental radiation

Estimates vary, but a common figure is that each child is born with around 100 new mutations. These are added to the ones already accumulated in previous generations.

These mistakes are almost never helpful. Could you ever expect to improve an encyclopedia by adding more and more spelling mistakes every time one is printed? The evolutionary literature acknowledges this very clearly. Even the simplest of living organisms are highly complex. Mutations—indiscriminate alterations of such complexity—are much more likely to be harmful than beneficial.5 It seems unlikely that any mutation is truly neutral in the sense that it has no effect on fitness. All mutations must have some effect, even if that effect is vanishingly small.9

In summary, the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. This is one of the most well-established principles of evolutionary genetics, supported by both molecular and quantitative-genetic data. One estimate is that damaging mutations outnumber helpful ones by a million to one.7 Even most of the ‘beneficial’ mutations turn out to break things rather than make things, e.g. wingless beetles on windswept islands

Evolutionists will sometimes try to rebut these ideas by saying things like, “If a mutation is damaging, it will be weeded out by natural selection.’ This oversimplified view of selection is drilled into biology students relentlessly in classrooms all over the world—and it is greatly misleading, because for most mutations, it is totally wrong!

Natural selection (NS)—a straightforward, real process—essentially just means ‘differential reproduction’; some members of a population will reproduce more than others. Therefore, the traits that are possessed by the ones reproducing the most are going to become the most common in the population over time.

The power of NS has been carefully measured.14 For selection to be able to ‘see’ the mutation, it must be strong enough to affect reproduction (e.g. by killing the individual before it can reproduce, or by causing sterility or a significant decline in fertility). Thus, NS cannot ‘see’ a nearly-neutral mutation because, on its own, the negative effect of the individual mutation is very tiny—far too small to cause any appreciable difference in reproduction. As errors accumulate with each generation, eventually their collective effect is very damaging. Natural selection can only weed out individual mutations as they happen. Once mutations have accumulated enough to be a real, noticeable problem, they are then a problem in the entire population, not just in an individual here or there. The whole population cannot be ‘selected away’—except by going extinct!

It is easy to see that selection does not weed out most mutations. We all have hundreds of mutations our ancestors did not have—yet most people have no trouble becoming parents and passing on their genes (along with many mistakes, both old and new). In short, if the world were even several hundred thousand years old, genetic entropy means that we would have long since become extinct.15 This demonstrates that it is biblical creation, not evolutionary theory, that matches up to genetic reality—and it highlights the dismal future that awaits humanity apart from the intervening work of our Creator God.

For references and Notes go to CMI (www.creation.com) and the article “Genetic entropy: The silent killer A devastatingly powerful argument against evolution” by Paul Price

BRINGING CLARITY TO THE GOSPEL

The book of Genesis is foundational to the entire Bible. Jesus and all of the New Testament writers considered the Old Testament as true history and foundational to all that they wrote. The foundational doctrines are all established in Genesis, origin of man, nature of man (made in the image of God), sin, death, marriage, God’s judgement of mankind with the worldwide flood of Noah’s day, origin of God’s nation Israel and its purpose. Jesus and the N.T writers all quoted from Genesis.

Did you know that having clarity about the opening chapters of Genesis (i.e. clarity about origins) brings clarity to the Gospel itself? It’s true! Thus, one of the enemy’s tactics is to spread a fog of compromise over the Bible’s account of origins. Learn how we can detect wolves in sheep’s clothing—who are distorting God’s Word—and why compromising ideas such as theistic evolution, the gap theory, day-age theory, the framework hypothesis, and progressive creation, obscure the plain gospel message.

Dr Mark Harwood of Creation Ministries does a great job of bringing clarity to the Gospel by addressing these compromising views of Genesis. As I have explained many times on this website, fulfilled prophecy proves the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Moreover, CMI and many PhD scientists such as Dr Mark Harwood on http://www.creation.com show clearly that the physical evidence of the world, particularly for a worldwide flood, supports a young earth history of this world. His presentation runs for about 45 minutes. The balance is Q & A. and explanation of the resources that are available from CMI.

WHAT AXIOMS IS YOUR WORLDVIEW BASED UPON?

The Creation/Evolution debate

The origin of our universe has never been about facts and evidence as such—we all have the same world, the same evidence, the same facts. It is the philosophical framework within which facts are interpreted which differs and philosophical frameworks are based on axioms (presuppositions, or starting beliefs). The scientific conclusions of Darwinism are squarely based on anti-biblical (naturalistic) axioms, while those of creation are based on biblical axioms. In any discussion on origins, the axioms need to be openly ‘on the table’, and it should be realized that one can discuss them in a secular setting without teaching religious doctrine as such, but without hiding or running away from the implications. The evidence concerning origins can be discussed through a critical comparison of axiom-based models (see below) without fostering the secular myth of ‘neutrality,’ i.e., that evidence ‘speaks for itself’ in some mysterious way.

There are creation and flood stories in most cultures that bear strong similarity to the Biblical accounts: ‘Why not then teach e.g. Australian Aboriginal creation and flood stories in science lessons?’ One could ask such objectors whether they are aware of any origins or flood teaching outside of the Biblical narrative which:

  • Claims to be absolute revelational truth from the Creator in documentary form
  • Has been held and believed consistently for many centuries in essentially its modern form.
  • Has been held to offer a serious historical explanation for all of reality including the origins of man and the universe and the reason why there are millions of dead things buried all around the world.
  • Is supported by a significant group of qualified scientists and other intellectuals who are convinced that it does indeed explain the data at least as well as evolution/long ages.

Extract from an article by Dr Carl Weiland: CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement http://www.creation.com

CHURCH NO LONGER THE AUTHORITY ON MORALITY AND ETHICS

Why is this so? No doubt it is the work of Satan who has undermined Scripture in the Body of Christ. With the teaching of evolution in our schools and universities as the origin of life and the universe, Satan has destroyed the foundational book of the Bible and it has led to cultural relativism and the denial of absolute truth.

It is in Genesis where we get answers to all the big questions of life: WHY, WHEN, WHERE & HOW. Answers to; why death and suffering, life’s meaning and purpose.

Bible colleges have swallowed the lie and tried to incorporate evolution and billions of years into Scripture. Once Genesis, the foundational book of the Bible was jettisoned, other portions of Scripture have followed, to the extent that God’s commands on marriage, homosexuality and gender are no longer considered good, in fact, are considered evil. In the main, it has turned our pastors into silent, timid shepherds who are afraid to touch any question that culture has deemed “political,” which includes almost all moral questions. 

It used to be that the Church was the authority on morality and ethics. Now, the clinical culture has said, these are political issues, and anyway, the Bible is full of errors, it is not the truth, so the Church has nothing to contribute.

Heresy is not only teachings that are wrong but includes deliberately omitting essential teachings. Carving out a portion of the Scripture and teaching that it does not apply and can be ignored today is a heresy. God’s Word provides the only true history of this planet. It is inerrant and the number of fulfilled prophecies demonstrate this truth. What’s going on today is just a new twist on an old practice, where people will cite a single passage of Scripture to make their case, and then ignore all the other scripture that speaks to that matter. And what some have done by fencing off a portion of the Old Testament is exactly that. And we must have the courage of our convictions to call it what it is, heresy.

God has raised up ministries such as http://www.creation.com and http://www.answersingenesis.com for such a time as this. If you need answers to the big questions on how to defend your faith then don’t hesitate to go to these sites.

We need to move forward with wisdom in the power of the Holy Spirit, we must understand that “darkness is the divine setup for light. Sickness is the divine setup for healing. The current crisis is the divine setup for the church to arise and shine and make a difference. We must seize the moment so that His Kingdom might come and we bring glory to God.

SCIENCE AROSE OUT OF BELIEF IN THE GOD OF THE BIBLE

This post is extracted from a great article – Christian theology and the rise of Newtonian science—imposed law and the divine will by Dominic Statham in Journal of Creation 32(2):103–109, August 2018

“At the heart of scientific enquiry is the faith that the world is orderly and behaves consistently from one day to the next.1 One might ask, however, how this belief arose. According to Peter Harrison, formerly Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, it was, in a large part, “the theologically informed assumption that there are laws of nature, promulgated by God and able to be discovered by human minds (emphasis added)”.2 Eminent Philosopher of Science Alfred North Whitehead would agree. He wrote: “My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology.”3

Platonic thinking was antithetical to science because it detracted from the view that the world could be understood by learning from observations. In contrast, biblical thinking pointed to this as the only way of discovering reality. The Bible teaches that God is omnipotent and was in no way constrained to create according to any prescribed pattern.

The rejection of Greek thinking by the founders of modern science is exemplified in Roger Cotes’ preface to the second edition of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy):

“Without all doubt this World … could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God directing and presiding over all. From this fountain it is that those laws, which we call the laws of Nature, have flowed; in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures; but learn them from observations and experiments.”

Newton himself, in the very first sentence of his preface, wrote of how modern thinkers, having discarded “[soulish] substantial forms and occult qualities have endeavoured to subject the phenomena of nature to the laws of mathematics”. A committed biblical creationist, he also rejected the Greek view that God would have been constrained in His acts of creation in any way. He wrote of God:

“ … we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion … and a God without dominion, providence, and final causes [i.e. design], is nothing else but Fate [i.e. necessity] and Nature.”20

Newton also wrote:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God or Universal Ruler.”27

Plato taught that the cosmos created by the Demiurge was a living organism, that the world had a divine soul, and the stars and planets were gods. In a similar vein, Aristotle taught that stones fall to the ground because they have a yearning for the centre of the universe (which he believed to be the centre of the earth). Such thinking was an obstruction to science because it attributed causes of motion to motives and inner compulsions, rather than to impersonal, external forces.21

In contrast, the Bible clearly distinguishes between the Creator and the creature (i.e. that which was created). God is spirit (John 4:24) and is a being separate from the world.

The lawgiver

The God of the Bible is the lawgiver in both the moral and physical realms. He gave the 10 commandments to Moses (Exodus 20:3–17) and wrote the requirements of the law on the hearts of men so that they “by nature do what the law requires” (Romans 2:14–15). He is the one who gathered the waters together (Genesis 1:9) and “assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command” (Proverbs 8:29). He “made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder” (Job 28:26). He created the sun to govern the day and night (Genesis 1:16), “commanded the morning … and caused the dawn to know its place” (Job 38:12). He created the stars to mark the seasons (Genesis 1:14), knows “the ordinances of the heavens”, and established “their rule on the earth” (Job 38:33). He continually “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).

Picture of the father of mathematics Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

rene-descartes

He stated that “the rules of nature are identical with the rules of mechanics” and, in his Le Monde (The World), he asserted “that God is immutable, and that acting always in the same manner, He produces always the same effect”. These laws, he said, are not immanent but ‘imposed’ on nature by God.39 

The courses of the planets, the oceanic tides and the universe in general are regular and predictable because they are determined by the God of the Bible who is faithful and sure. Descartes’ contention that the natural world is governed by an unchanging God, and hence behaves consistently from one day to the next, was an essential step in scientific progress.

The belief that there are laws imposed upon a world by an orderly, faithful, and immutable God caused philosophers to see the universe as a designed mechanism, rather than an eternally existing organism. This, in turn, led to the belief that the workings of God’s creation could be investigated, understood, and described mathematically. All this hung on the Christian doctrine of creation, as articulated so clearly in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.”

Review of Outgrowing God by Richard Dawkins Random House, New York, NY, 2019

Atheist evangelist Richard Dawkins is on the crusade again with his latest book Outgrowing God1 to win more converts to his religion of atheism. His book was released in September, published by Random House Books.

CMI has produced an excellent review of this book. I suggest you go to their website http://www.creation.com to see it, in its entirety. The following is an abbreviated version.

As a teenager, Dawkins de-converted from (nominal) Christianity to atheism since he was unsure as to which god was the right god out of hundreds or even thousands of candidates.

book-cover

Dawkins does not understand that to know God one has to be born again and receive the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can lead you into all truth. He is our counsellor, teacher and comforter. It is the Holy Spirit that produces the fruit of the Spirit in a believers life: love, joy, peace, patience, faithfulness goodness, gentleness, kindness and self control. He is also the one that gives the gifts of the spirit for ministry.

In the first half of his book Dawkins raises eternal questions about good and evil. Is God really good? Is the Bible really true? Do we need the Bible and God to be good?

Dawkins obviously, like much of the world, does not like what God defines as sin and would much prefer to make up his own rules. Moreover, would like to change those rules as he sees fit.

Sin involves nothing less than flagrant rebellion against the will of Almighty God. Sin cuts us off from the living God entirely. This is no trifling matter. God, as our Creator, would be perfectly righteous in sending every one of us to death for our sins. It is only by God’s grace that He doesn’t do so. In fact, the problem of our eternal, sinful separation was so bad, that God sent His Son Jesus to die for our sins on the cross (see also Dawkins’ dilemma: how God forgives sin).

A key element in Dawkins’ de-conversion experience is his belief in evolution, which convinced him that seemingly designed elements really evolved over long periods of time.

The second half of Dawkins’ book deals with his attempt to undermine the concept of intelligent design, using natural selection and evolution as an alternative explanation. Not wanting to sound trite but as a scientist he should be aware of the Ockham’s Razor approach to science. For even Dawkins himself has previously stated “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.14 So, even as an evolutionist, Dawkins is forced to acknowledge how certain structures in the animal kingdom appear to be designed. His examples include the color pigments of the octopus, the tongue of the chameleon, and the legs of the cheetah, or the feathers of birds (p. 36).

Dawkins does not explain how legs can turn into wings or leaves into thorns. Neither does he name a single gene which would be responsible for such mutations as a practical example. In short, Dawkins misrepresents the way natural selection happens in nature. Natural selection is efficient in explaining how anatomically different structures in organisms lead to differential survival. But it does not explain how the structures themselves arise. People readily recognise cases of intelligent design in automobiles, buildings, books, statues, or hieroglyphs. Therefore, DNA serves as a plan for the whole entire body of an organism. DNA is the information that controls all the machinery of the cells to function successfully, to reproduce and adapt to their environment. Information comes only from intelligence and in the case of the information to control living cells, a level of intelligence beyond our understanding..

Dawkins understands that the Earth is fine-tuned for life to exist on its surface. If the Earth were just a little too close to the Sun, then it would be too hot for life to exist. On the other hand, if it was just a little too far, then it would be too cold for life. Furthermore, if the gravitational constant, G were even just a little different, then life could not exist on Earth. This is something called the anthropic principle, namely that Earth, and even the universe seems to have been designed especially for human life.

In response, Dawkins posits the multiverse concept. This concept states there are millions or even billions of universes, parallel with our own, each defined by its own laws and physical constants. Therefore, according to the law of big numbers, even though the great majority of these universes may all be devoid of life, a very small percent of them may still be finely tuned to allow life to appear.

What physical evidence is there for billions of other universes? Is it even possible for us to know of other universes? As such, this is not a scientific concept. Even if there happened to be other universes out there, how do we know that there are billions of them? Also, how do we know that they come into being independently from one another to have differing parameters and physical laws? Nonsense.

Lastly, Dawkins and other evolutionists attack design as unscientific. However, we see intuitively, that design is scientific. For example, if engineers designed sonar systems from bats, what kind of supernatural intelligence created bats? Design can easily be inferred from simple observation of nature. Dawkins needs to use extra, convoluted arguments to explain that biological structures evolved as opposed to being simply designed. By applying the principle of Ockham’s Razor, we can reject Dawkins’ evolutionary arguments and accept the principle of design. Dawkins should not reject intelligent design but acknowledge it as a viable scientific argument for the origin of life.

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Who cares about the age of earth? The evolutionists care about it a lot as there whole story is based on billions of years. This presentation presents considerable credible evidence for a young earth.

Whose interpretation of the facts will you believe?

Your eternal destiny depends upon knowing the truth and only God’s Word reveals the truth as given by the Creator of the Cosmos. If you have not read my recent post “What is Truth?” can I suggest you do so even before you watch this video.

ESTEEMED YALE PROFESSOR REJECTS DARWINISM

Yale academic and professor, David Gelernter has openly rejected the theory of evolution, insisting that it contains many contradictions and flaws. He argues Intelligent Design is a serious theory.

Image source: YouTube/Hoover Institution

Professor Gelernter bravely stepped forward to take a shot at the popular theory and urged his fellow academics not to sweep over critical thought on the subject out of an anti-religious bias.

“Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life,” the professor explained in a paper titled, “Giving Up Darwin,” as cited by the Daily Wire.

“Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers.”

One of the central issues Gelernter raises against the pre-eminent theory is that it is nearly impossible to create a stable and functioning protein. “Immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is — so far — a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail,” he noted. “Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million — you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”

In contrast to the strong scepticism he holds towards Darwinian theory, Professor Gelernter argued that intelligent design is now the “first, and obviously most intuitive [theory] that comes to mind.”

Intelligent Design deduces that God must be the primary force behind the creation of the universe because, well, something simply cannot come out of nothing. While the theory is widely accepted by many in the Christian scientific community, Gelernter insisted that, on the whole, academics who reject Darwinism and subscribe to a God-centred argument find themselves being viciously attacked.

In a discussion hosted by the Hoover Institute, the professor expanded on these concerns. “I have to distinguish between the way I’ve been treated personally, which has been a very courteous and collegial way by my colleagues at Yale, they’re nice guys and I like them, they’re my friends,” he explained at the round table, hosted in June of this year.“On the other hand, when I look at their intellectual behaviour, what they publish, and, much more important, what they tell their students, Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument. As far as they are concerned, you take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it.”

Doubling down on his concerns, Gelernter warned that a majority of those in the wider academic community show “nothing approaching free speech on this topic.”“It’s a bitter rejection, not just — a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection, which comes nowhere near scientific of intellectual discussion,” he added. “I’ve seen that happen again and again. ‘I’m a Darwinist, don’t you say a word against it, or, I don’t wanna hear it, period.’”Far from engaging in a civil academic discussion, the professor noted that if you criticise Darwinism, academics often react as if you have been “attacking their religion.” “It is a big issue for them,” he said. 

Christians understand that this is a spiritual issue. The fight is not against flesh and blood but against principalities , against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age , against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12