skip to Main Content

Booklet Categories

Our Booklets

Should the Veiling of Christian Women be Practiced all the Time?
Are You A Priest?
The Apostles Doctrine on the Place of Faith for Christian Women
Did the Apostles of Christ Teach and Practice Legalism?
The Gifts of Ephesians 4:11, are They for Today?
Worship, What God Has established?
The Commandments
A Comparison Chart between the Law of Moses, the Present day Church, and the Grace of God
God’s Two Covenants Explained
Can a Christian Ever Be Lost?
Remarriage, for the Christian, will God Sanction It?
Believe Not Every Spirit
The Eternal Word of God or Satan’s teaching and the works of his kingdom
Jerusalem or Bethel?
A Debate and Discussion between Evolution and Creation
The Grace of God or The license of Man?
Legalism In The House Of God
Are You a Disciple? And of What or Whom?
This World, a Life Without Justice
Fellowship Relationship with God, Temporal or Eternal?
The Will, Work, Word And Spirit Of God
Led by the Ministry or Led by the Spirit?
Should A Christian Major In Minors?
The Works Of Man Or The Work of God Through Jesus Christ
Is God For Us? Or Is God Against Us?
Spirit and Truth Worship is it Yours
Religion, What Is It? And Who Has It?
Spirit, Soul, Body
Christian Men, Producers Of Godly Seed Or Earthly Tares?
The Faith of Abraham and the Christian
Putting Feet To Faith
Will You Know and be Known by Friends and Family in Heaven?
Does God Hold The Christian Accountable To Keep The Saturday Sabbath
As The Shepherd Takes From The Mouth Of The Lion, Two Legs Or A Piece Of An Ear
Dependence or Independence?
Failure: Opportunity for the Hungry
The Divine Shepherd
Baptism by the Spirit
Are You A Christian, Or Just Religious?
Are You Cast Down?
Dead Men Can’t Sin
Unless you are Converted and become as a little Child
Ups And Downs Of A Spirit-Led Life
The Christian
A Brother’s Meeting
An Outline of the Book of Revelation
The Bible, the Work of Man or a Divine Revelation?
By Faith Alone
Two Trees



A Debate and Discussion between Evolution and Creation

A Debate and Discussion between Evolution and Creation


6 Debates:

Debate 1

  1. Evolution
  2. Six days
  3. Six thousand years
  4. Christian God
  5. See stars six thousand light years away
  6. Wouldn’t be able to see their light
  7. Two choices.

Debate 2

  1. Evolution
  2. Religion
  3. Supernatural
  4. Evolutionary theory
  5. Allah
  6. God-man
  7. Create life
  8. Scientific formulas
  9. It is guided by natural law
  10. It is testable against the empirical world
  11. Stars and earth were creation days
  12. Natural to explain the natural
  13. Black and white fallacy
  14. Appeal of ignorance
  15. Evolutionist disproving Creationism
  16. Evolution vs.Creationism

Debate 3

  1. Natural laws supersede any supernatural
  2. Opportune time
    1. Multiple supernatural explanations
  3. Compete for the masses
  4. No supernatural explanation has superseded a natural explanation
  5. Natural laws then begin to take the place of former ideas
  6. Imagination of the individual
  7. Nothing harmful with believing
  8. Superstitions contradict a naturallaw
  9. Dangerous and unwise to hold a superstition above natural law
  10. Still living in the age of superstition
  11. Superstitions are used all the time to manipulate the public
  12. CFC’s breakdown of ozone now banned
  13. Religious questions
  14. Would you be a Christian if there were no heaven or hell?
  15. Bacteria, amoeba, etc, on another planet
  16. Finding holes in evolution
  17. Labeling people

Debate 4

  1. Whoever becomes victorious, determines the truth
  2. Can we logically deduce truths from history books two thousand years old?
  3. It claims to be divined from God
  4. How do we know the Bible is the word of God?
  5. Faith has to enter the picture somewhere
  6. Absolute truth from one source and not another
  7. Peoples testimonies as being absolute truth
  8. Predict an event that has not happened yet
  9. Open-mindedness
  10. Since no books can predict future events
  11. Creating life
  12. Reevaluate your current position
  13. Humans to have soul or spirit
  14. What specific laws of nature are being broken?
  15. Speed of light as a constant
  16. Natural laws to tell us how old the universe is
  17. Something different in the Bible
  18. We have evolved out of slime
  19. Black and White fallacy
  20. Kelley’s statement
  21. Prove the evolution process by manipulating cells
  22. Idea will stay relevant

Debate 5

  1. Exposition by David of Stephen Jay Gould, professor at Harvard University
  2. Dennis answers in letter form

Debate 6

  1. The use of reason
  2. More reason not to believe the Bible, than believe
  3. Reason to convert people into Christianity
  4. What would it take for me to believe
  5. I have given countless Christians a chance
  6. Beliefs based on reasoning
  7. Attack my community
  8. Scientists must go through scrutiny


The following six debates in this booklet are exchanges between a student in a university taking evolution classes, and myself. This young man grew up in an evangelical church. This exchange was prompted by his desire to discuss and debate the differences of understanding as to Creation or Evolution. This discussion happened over a period of months. Numbers are assigned to each of his important points, the numbers on my answers correspond to the numbers on David’s statements and questions.

This booklet is put together for the purpose of helping those who are considering what is involved in the teaching of Creation or Evolution and are attempting to more clearly understand the claims of one or the other. Young men and women are bombarded with many such teachings as Evolution when entering into a college, university or schools of higher learning today.

There is of course much more that could have been discussed, however, the discussion was terminated after six exchanges. If the reader, who has interest in this subject will not stop here but will go to his own research, his or her efforts will be rewarded.

Dennis Neely

7-12-05 reprinted 1-26-07

“I have made the earth, and created man on it” (Isaiah 45:12)

“For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:18)

David’s Questions and Statements about Evolution

Debate 1, David writes:

What is Creationism? What is Evolution? (#1)

Creationism is the belief that the Earth formed in six days (#2)

And the Earth is six thousand years old. (#3)

Evolution is the belief that the Earth formed over millions of years and that life has formed in a variety of species over millions of years. Creationism uses the idea that the Christian God created each species with the ability to survive in its environment. (#4) Evolution uses the idea of natural selection to explain the variety of species, and the ability to survive in its environment. If we take the Bible literally and believe the heavens and earth were created in six days, can this stand up to modern thinking? “Then God said, “Let there be light,” and light appeared. And God was pleased with it, and divided the light from the darkness. He called the light “daytime” and the darkness “nighttime” (Life Application Bible). Together, they formed the first day.” So we have light the first day Six thousand years ago. (#3)

With Fizeau and the help of other scientists, science has determined that light has a constant speed. With experiments done with rotating mirrors, they’ve approximated it to be 299,796 kilometers per second. Now, you can choose to believe that light travels at a constant speed or it doesn’t.

Being human we have the ability to believe anything, thus creating our own realities. You can create reasons to satisfy either side. Either we do not know that light travels at a constant speed because all the experiments were performed poorly and the scientists cheated to get the same results or the experiments have been tested numerous times, always achieving similar results, thus it is not a coincidence but fact, assuming that science is not the pursuit of truth, but a method of falsification; the more times and experiment is done the stronger the odds become of being a fact. If we can agree that light has a constant speed then I can continue, but if we cannot, then it would be pointless for me to go on.

Assuming we can agree that light has a constant speed, then this brings me back to Genesis. If light was created the first day, six thousand years ago, then we should only be able to see stars six thousand light years away. (#5) There is nothing vague about the word “light.” It is one of the most basic words in all languages. If there is a disagreement on the word “light,” then in 1:16 “For God had made two huge lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down upon the earth – the larger one, the sun, to preside over the day and the smaller one, the moon, to preside through the night; he had also made the stars.” This is not a play on words. (#4) If the Christian God made the earth and a distant star, millions of light years from each other, we wouldn’t be able to see their light. (#6)

I know this will not convince you at all. It seems to me that you are left with two choices: Light is not a constant and travels faster than our experiments reveal or I have somehow misinterpreted Genesis and the stars were created long before the earth. (#7)


Debate 1, Dennis writes:

David: Here are some thoughts concerning your paper. They are numbered as you can see to relate to your paper, which is also numbered.

1. Evolution is a religion: Evolution is a spiritual direction that attempts to explain man, as the final end of all things on the earth. Man being the highest form of evolving life, becomes the god-man, “The serpent said to the woman…and you will be like God…” (Genesis 3:4-5). It is humanism in a different form. In a court case before the Supreme Court in 1933, with all the evidence weighted, the Court ruled that Humanism is a religion.

Provable scientific facts do not give any validity to the idea that all life just happened. Fred Hoyle, a British Noble Prizewinner in mathematics, put together experiments, with another well known scientist to test the probabilities of evolution being possible or true. After all their experiments were completed Fred said this: “the possibility of evolution happening is: 10 to the fortieth power, in mathematical equations, that is the number 4 with forty thousand zero’s behind it.” In other words it is impossible.

Fred went on to say that; “I am not a Christian, but I can tell you that somebody made all of this, I do not know who, but somebody made it.” The reality of these scientific tests is that it would be more possible for a tornado to go through a junk yard, and leave a new 747 jumbo jet resting in the place of the junk yard than for evolution to take place.

2. Six Days: There are some people who believe that Creation took longer than six days. However, the Hebrew word for day used in the Creation account in Genesis, is a 24 hour day.

3. Six Thousand Years: The Bible does not say that the Creation account happened six thousand years ago. The Bible gives no time on when the Creation took place. James Ussher’s published his work on the dates in the Bible that could be proved. Ussher’s work was published in 1658 A.D. Ussher’s dating began with Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon. 6th Century B.C. is accepted by most historians as the date of his rule. From this date Ussher worked backwards and used the life spans of people in the Bible and many, many other known informational documents to arrive at the date of Creation. Some other men have done a similar work and arrived at a somewhat different time of Creation. However, it is James Ussher’s dating that is shown in most Bibles.

4. Christian God: The term Christian God is incorrect, as God declares Himself to be the God of the whole earth (Isaiah 54:5). Before Christ, Jehovah was known as the God of Israel.

5. Be Able To See, Six thousand Years Away: God may have created the Earth, Moon, Sun, and Stars in place as if they had always been there. No one can say except the One who put them there. Job thought, he knew something, so God asked him this question: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Is not this question valid to us today? (Job 38:4).

6. We Wouldn’t Be Able To See The Light: If God created everything as if it had always been there, we would be able to see the stars light years (star and planets which may have no end). When NASA was going to land on the moon, according to the evolutionists the billions of years of space dust on the moon would be 150 foot deep. They thought this because space dust can be measured as to the amount invading the earths atmosphere or the moon’s atmosphere. As you may know the dust was only a few inches deep. In other words the moon was only thousands of years old.

7. There are two choices in these facts: Either you believe known facts or some theory of evolutionist religion, which manufactures it own facts, with the intent of bamboozling us uneducated in the sciences so-called. It is good to think and use your mind to ascertain the facts. Scripture tells us to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Many things of God are hidden and no man will ever know them in this life. The things that God has put in our dwelling place (the earth, sun, moon, stars) we can know by searching them out. The real question is, is man going to believe God or man?

If you can answer this question; you will know if you are created, or if you are a god-man. The question is a challenge: Think of something, which does not already exist. This does not include rearranging the 116 known elements in the creation. Lenin, a confirmed free thinker, an atheist of the humanist religion, could not answer this question, nor anybody else, who supposed themselves to have open mind in higher knowledge.

Man is a finite being, with his dwelling place within the creation of God. The word of God shows us the eternal and supernatural. Things that are too high for us to understand in the natural, yet provable as true. For example, prophecies in the Old Testament give a comprehensible timetable for the Messiah to come on the earth. These prophecies can be factually tested to see if they are the imagination of men, or if they are fulfilled in Christ. Prophecies in the Old Testament that are thousands of years old, and are fulfilled right to the letter, is beyond any company of men, to bring about. Only the One who knows all things, from the beginning of time, to the end of time, can know these things. The prophecies following are only a sample of the facts given to us in Scripture. We can read ourselves to see if these things are so, or false.

The birthplace of the Messiah prophesied:

Micah 5:2 800 B.C.


Luke 24-7 1 A. D.

The linage of genealogy, of the Messiah prophesied:

Genesis 22:18, 1890 B.C.

Isaiah 9:6-7. 700 B.C.


Matthew 1:1-16 1 A.D.

Luke 3:23-38 1 A.D.

The anointing of the Spirit of God on the Messiah prophesied:

Isaiah 61:1-3 700 B.C.


Matthew 3:16, 17. 30 A.D.

Luke 4:16-21 30 A.D.

The death of the Messiah prophesied:

Isaiah 53:12 700 B.C.

Psalms 22:1-18 1000 A.D.


Mark 15:15-32 33 A.D.

The rejection of the Messiah prophesied:

Isaiah 53:3 712 B.C.


John 1:11 30 A.D.

Luke 4:28-30 30 A.D.

The time of His rejection and death prophesied:

Daniel 9:24-26 538 B.C.

Leviticus 23:4 1490 B.C.


John 12:27 33 A.D.

John 19:14-18 33 A.D.

The resurrection of Messiah prophesied:

Psalms 16:8-10 1000 B.C.

Psalms 30:3, 41:10 1000 B.C.


Matthew 28:1-10 33 A.D.

The Messiah is omnipotent:

Isaiah 9:6 771 A.D.


John 1:1 30 A.D.

“ Let God be true and every man a liar.” Romans 3:4


Debate 2, David writes:

Is evolution a religion?

American Heritage Dictionary:

Evolution – The theory that groups of organisms change with the passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so the descendants differ morphologically from their ancestors. (#1)

Religion – Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power and powers regarded as creator or governor of the universe. (#2)

Supernatural – of or relating to existence outside the natural world. (#3)

The idea of the evolutionary theory acknowledges no necessary belief in a supernatural creator. Evolution encompasses only the natural world and therefore cannot be a religion without the necessary reference of a supernatural being. God, a being conceived as a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principle object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. Jehovah – in the Old Testament, God. (#4)

The reason I used the term “Christian God” is that there are people that believe in God but not in creationism according to Genesis. Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion that uses the word “God” to describe their creator. Using the term “Christian God” clarifies that I’m referring to the God of the Bible.

“Allah” which means “The God” is used to distinguish the Islamic god from the Christian god.“Jehovah” is a more precise word to use because there are Christians that are evolutionist and “Jehovah” is the God of the Old Testament in which Genesis is found. (#5)

“God-man” – You would think this term would be describing a man with supernatural powers. Humans, being merely rational animals, don’t seem worthy to be given such a title as “God-man.” (#6)

What is needed to create life on another planet? (#7)

Scientific Formulas: The planet must be at an appropriate distance from a star in order for H20 to have triple point (gas, liquid, solid). If the planet is to close to the sun, such as Venus, the surface temperature becomes to hot and all the H20 is turned into a gas. If the planet is to far away, such as Mars, then the H20 becomes an ice. Mars has C02 ice caps at both poles. The planet must have a moon at an appropriate distance and large enough mass for the gravity to create tides in the ocean (liquid H20). The moon’s gravitational pull creates low tides and high tides. The tide pools collect water and receive ultraviolet light which produces contemporary life. See Miller-Urey Experiment. (#8)

Essential Characteristics of Science 1. It is guided by natural law? (#9)

2. It has to be explanatory by reference of natural law.

3. It is testable against the empirical world? (#10)

4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word.

5. It is falsifiable? Is it possible that the stars and earth were creation days? (#11)

According to science, no. The only way to explain this phenomenon is to use the idea that a supernatural being placed the star’s light between the earth and the sun as if it had always been there. Once you use the supernatural to explain the natural, you are no longer using science. This is the root of our disagreement. I place merit in using the natural to explain the natural while you place merit in using the supernatural to explain the natural. According to science, and the natural, certain stars were created millions of years before the earth. (#12)

Black and White Fallacy – Arguing with the use of sharp distinctions despite any factual or theoretical support to them. (#13)

Fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) – Arguing that something is true because no one has proved it to be false or arguing that something is false because no one has proved it to be true. Example “The earth and stars were created days from each other because no one has proved it to be false.” (#14)

Appeal of Ignorance – The lack of evidence for something is used to support its truth. If we can disprove evolution will this prove creationism? (#14)

Considering that both theories are independent of each other discrediting one will not prove the other. Creationists most often use so called “evidence” to disprove evolution then suggest that this is evidence for creationism. You never see it the other way around.

An evolutionist disproving creationism then stating that this is evidence for evolution. The reason why you don’t see this is that you don’t need creationism for evolution to test any hypothesis. Take away evolution and creationist wouldn’t have a lot to say. There is mountains of information on the evolution vs. creationism debate. We could spend a lifetime discussing each piece of evidence for evolution. Which is why the speed of light makes this debate so much simpler. In the end creationist fall on the supernatural to explain the natural. This is no longer science because you can’t falsify the supernatural. If you could it would no longer be the supernatural. (#15)

The evolution vs. creationism debate is merely a mirror of science vs. religion. (#16)


Debate 2, Dennis writes:

I have answered your paper according to the numbers on your paper. There are some fundamental truths that would need to be agreed on in order to talk the same language. I will speak to these at the end of this paper.

1. Evolution: Evolution is a theory, this we can agree on. It may be the worst theory possible, but it is still a theory. As any person can take some thing that happened in the past and attempt to make the events say something other than the facts of those events. A case in point is the United States Constitution. In our day judges interpret the Constitution in ways that the founding fathers would not even recognize. The Roman Catholic Church over the centuries put multitudes of heretics to torture and death. Now they are not heretics but separated brethren according to Rome. Rewriting facts is a common way of avoiding truth.

2. Religion: Reverence for anything divine. Hindus reverence 330,000,000 gods; man is also of the gods. In Japan, Shinto’s reverence for the ancestors is also god worship, as was their Emperor, who was worshipped by all of the people of Japan as god.

When man raises up anything above his Creator he is making a god out of it. Even in our own short history in the last few years, we have had: David Korish, Jim Jones, Father Divine, (Lane Counties own, Snake Brooks), and Raujhnesh. All of these people were thought to be gods by their followers. Doing whatever their leaders beckoned them. Some Pentecostal televangelists tell their people that they can create something out of nothing just like the original creation. This again makes man the god. Jehovah God made man with creative powers within the confines of his habitation. The difference between the supposed godhead of man and the Godhead of Jehovah is that man is a god in word only, trying to explain his supposed god like position as head over all that has been created in this world, without his Creator.

3. Supernatural: The supernatural affects the natural world; this is evident by anyone who will look into supernatural phenomena. For example, U.F.O.’s have no natural answer, however, to say they do not exist is to disbelieve multitudes of people who will swear in court to have seen them. Are all of these people liars? People who have seen aberrations are they not telling the truth? When people practice witchcraft and put a curse on someone in African villages or other places and they die, is that just a coincidence? When people who practice spiritualism hear voices and see ectoplasm coming out of the medium, are they all telling stories? When the Roman Catholic statures of Mary cry real tears and it is documented, is that all fake? Or is it supernatural?

Some years ago a man came to Eugene and told everybody who wanted to walk on fire and fire coals bare footed they could do so, if they would give him $100.00.

A Register Guard reporter went with the people to record what happened. Sixty, probably unbelieving people paid him the money. The man built a fire about eleven feet long and three feet wide. After playing rock music for about three hours he told everybody that had paid him $100.00 to take off their shoes and socks and to follow him. This they did and walked on the fire bare footed and no one was burned.

All of this was reported in the Register Guard. All of those who did not think that the supernatural could affect the natural world were dumbfounded to say the least. One thing is for sure; the supernatural does affect the natural world that we live in.

Very few who would examine the evidence would say different.

4. Evolution Theory: Evolutionists believe in a power to make evolution happen, they just don’t know what that power is that makes it happen. Whether it is micro or macro, it is a power outside the natural normal D.N.A. genetics that makes it happen.

5. Allah: Allah was one of the 300 gods which were worshipped in Medina. This is where all the tribes of Saudi Arabia went to worship the 300 idols. Mohammad had visions and visitations from Jennees (demonic spirits). From this Mohammad started a war against the tribes and 299 gods of Media. When he won the war he destroyed all the gods but the “moon god”, which was Allah.

The communist Lenin said that religion was the opiate of the people. I believe his statement to be true, whether it is man’s natural religion or the devil’s supernatural religion.

6. God-man: My question is, as we survey the history of man, what is there in man’s history to show us that man is a rational animal (man animal, evolutionists idea of man)? Man does have an animal or Adamic nature (that which is self-centered and opposess his Creator) and he uses it in intelligence to further his own selfish ways. That is why the world is in the shape it is in.

The Old Testament prophets prophesied that Jesus Christ would be fully man, and fully God. In other words, Jesus was completely natural and He was completely God the Creator., He was the true God-man. Do we have the qualifications to judge Him? Are we able to be His judge? The historical facts looked into by any honest person I believe will tell us we do not. Many an honest atheist or agnostic, who set out to prove the historical Biblical record inaccurate became a Christian by putting the known facts together and letting them speak for themselves (‘see history of C. S. Lewis).

7. Create life: Since nobody has ever created life but the Creator, the answer should be obvious to any person. If you mean what is the scientific formula. Men have yet to find the answer to that question, it is doubtful that they ever will.

8. Scientific formulas: This subject of what environment is necessary for life to exist is endless. However, the planet earth is a perfect environment for its inhabitants. Essential Characteristics of Science

9. It is guided by natural law: In nature we have laws that govern the natural world that we live in. However, scientists change this when they cannot explain or understand the natural world around them. For example, two scientists in a university in Boston some years ago came up with the idea that the universe was created out of nothing. Everything came together out of nothing. This violates all natural law, but not the supernatural. Scripture instructs us that God spoke and the world came into being (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2; 11:3). Some time ago another set of scientists went on national news to tell us that man did not evolve from the sea, but from the dirt of the earth. We are all aware that man’s physical make up is of the soil of the earth. Scripture tells us that God made man from the soil of the earth (Genesis 2:7). These two earth-shaking discoveries in the scientific world were hardly news to anyone who has read the Bible. These, and many more, are examples of natural law being changed when it is convenient for someone to explain the natural world around us. Einstein appeared to be more consistent to true science when he came to the conclusion from studying the A. and B. of quantum physics that there has to be a God.

10. Testable science: True understanding of the world we live in is a valid pursuit, and is true science. That however, is not what evolution is. The book, “The Hidden History of the Human Race” clearly and factually shows artifacts that are man made, to be 4 to 500,000,000 years old. These dates are set according to the modern dating of all geology. What do the evolutionists do with these accepted facts? They did nothing, because like all religion there is money to be made in evolution. Grants, write offs, donations, careers, and many other schemes will be lost if people no longer have any faith in evolution.

11. Created days apart: Anything is possible however no one was there to see it put in place. Nor could this ever be proved one way or the other. Some atheistic scientists have more faith in the supernatural than Christians in the un- provable past.

12. Natural to explain to the natural: I agree that you are trying to stick to facts to explain nature. However, the people we get our scientific facts from do not stick to natural law. The laws of physics are very precise; those who are trying to prove evolution do not stick to it. Macro- evolution is only one example of their attempting to fit evolution into natural science. This is because Micro Bio-chemistry has shown from the new knowledge of the cell function the impossibility of evolution. Evolution jumps from the natural to the supernatural (Macro.evolution) to keep the faith. Just because they do not call it supernatural does not change what they believe.

As you have also said they ignore known facts to keep from admitting the foundational error of their theory. They come with just about every theory possible to be able to keep the faith (religion) alive.

13. Black and White Fallacy: If something is proved to be true, it is black and white. For example, in the last paper I gave you, the prophecies I point to as a case in fact. These are attested to by anyone who will examine the evidence. To try to bring a theory in, to disprove these facts is a waste of time for any researcher. Evolution is a theory as agreed to by most believers of evolution. It has not been proved and cannot be proved. The prophecies in Scripture are a fact and can be proved.

14. Appeal of Ignorance: We totally agree on this point.

15. An evolutionist disproving creationism: This is the goa of some evolutionists, and has been stated by persons of that persuasion. The Church of God has had a lot to say for 2000 years. Many people have closed their hearing to the message unfortunately. In other words the Church has been anything but quiet.

16. Science vs religion: Again we are in agreement. Religion is at the bottom of the evolution belief. This has even been stated by some evolutionists. For example, before the Scopes trial in about 1925, creation was all that was taught in public schools. Evolutionists saw creation as a competing religion. Today only the evolutionist’s faith is allowed in public schools. This means no examining the facts, no discussion of creation in the textbooks, just one belief is to be taught to the unsuspecting pupils.

This is not education or science it is brainwashing. This happened in Galileo’s day as those in the humanist religion threatened death and excommunication if Galileo did not change his provable facts.

It might be helpful to look at the people who have believed in evolution and followed it. Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot: Where did their belief system lead them. These are the facts: these people are responsible for the deaths of over one hundred million people. What did they base their direction of life on? Evolution was, and is, the central point of their spiritual direction. Their belief is that man has no spirit, and he has no soul. Man is only a body, in other words he is only a higher form of an animal evolved from the elements. The evil things people will do when there no Creator to be accountable to is without limits. That is because it does not matter if you live or die if you are only an animal. A tenet of their faith is: There is no final judgment, no reckoning, no life after death, and no eternity in hell. So they can do with people as they would with animals. That is exactly how people treated others as they followed this supposed non-spiritual path. Atheism is their religion; evolution is the foundation that it is built on.

Questions to answer: 1. Do men have a spirit? If so what is it? Does man have a soul? If so what is it? Is there a judgment after departure from the body? How can we know if this is true? Is there eternal judgment for all men without Christ? Are there provable facts that will tell us if this is true? Is evil in man because he evolved from the scum of the earth, or because he has Adam’s spiritual D.N.A.? Is man a spiritual being, living in a physical body and environment, or is man purely a material being in a material world? What is the most common denominator for all living things on the earth? Your thoughts and answers to these questions will help clarify our discussion.


Debate 3 David writes:

To clarify where we are currently at in this debate:

I believe that natural laws supersede any supernatural explanation on all counts of reason and logic. (#1) When a phenomenon occurs and there is no natural explanation, this is an opportune time for a supernatural explanation to emerge. (#2)

Multiple supernatural explanations none more valid than another (#2a), can compete for the masses. (#3)

Historically no supernatural explanation has superseded a natural explanation. (#4)

As time passes, new ideas are born and tested with the aide of advancing technology.

Natural laws then begin to take the place of former ideas. Natural laws rely on logic and reasoning where the supernatural relies only on the imagination of the individual. (#5) If David Copperfield didn’t tell anyone he is an illusionist people would probably believe he’s possessed and the demons give him the power to levitate. (#6) Superstitions are high in India. Shamans pretend to cast demons out and put the demons into a coconut. The coconut rolls frantically around on the ground as if possessed with a demon. The shaman then smashes the coconut with his foot and blood spills out of the coconut. The shaman collects for his service and is on his way. What the people didn’t know was that in the hollow coconut contained a mouse and a vile of blood. There is always a lot of money to be made in the world of magic and illusion. Crop circles, UFO sightings, alien abductions, stigmata, magic spells… There is nothing harmful with believing in such things (#7), but when superstitions contradict a natural law it is in direct opposition to reason and logic. (#8)

It is dangerous and unwise to hold a superstition above natural law. (#9)

Not too long ago, in Australia, reported cases of skin cancer climbed to 50% more than the precious year. If we were still living in the age of superstition (#10), I’m sure people would be wondering what they had done to displease their god. The leaders of the ruling religion would then tell the people what they need to do in order to bring back their god’s favor. Superstitions are used all the time to manipulate the public. (#11)

But since we live in an age of reason we know that aerosol cans contain CFC’s that break down the ozone layer which protects us from the sun’s radiation. Now for the past decade, production of all CFC’s has been banned by all first world countries. (#12)

As for your religious questions, I will answer you with this: The actions of a virtuous man are governed by his own moral legislation and not by fear of consequence. D.W.B. (#13)

Would you be a Christian if there was no heaven or hell? (#14)

P.S. – If we find life (bacteria, amoeba, etc.) on another planet or moon, would You then believe life can be created with fundamental elements? (#15)

P.P.S. – Finding holes in evolution doesn’t prove creationism. (#16)

P.P.P.S. – You can label me if it makes you feel better, but I bare no affiliation, I only speak for myself. (#17)


Debate 3, Dennis writes:

David, I will again answer your suppositions according to the numbers that I have put on your paper. I do think it would be better for you to answer my questions even if you do not see everything as to my understanding. That way we could discuss more specifics of our different understandings. I have tried to address some of the laws of physics in your assertions, even though I admit to limited knowledge in the field. That is why I must quote those who are recognized as authorities in their field of expertise. I would like to see you address the makeup of man even if you accept the psychologists understanding of man’s makeup.

1. Natural Laws supercede supernatural: I do not believe that you believe this, because nobody jumps to the supernatural more than the evolutionists (macro evolutionist through mutation). This is a jump into the supernatural when the evidence shows it is impossible according to all laws of known science and physics.

2. Opportune time: Look at number 1. We are in total agreement on this point.

2a. Multiple supernatural explanations: These have always been the thoughts of the natural man (man without divine knowledge of the true God, based on facts). Supernatural experiences, pursuing the unknown spirit world, complete with explanations to explain nature through one’s following of pagan gods. Evolution is a good example of that. One god is as good as another god, unless it is one’s own god that is found out to be a fraud. Then it is not abnormal for a person to feel attacked. This has been true in all of man’s history. For example in the days of Israel’s invasion by foreign gods, Baal, a god of the Canaanites had held the sway of the masses. The God of Israel showed this false god for what he was through Elijah the prophet (1 Kings 18:20-40). Moses had the same battle with Pharaoh and the Egyptian gods in his day (Exodus 5:1, 2). What happened to Moses and Elijah is no different than the false gods of today, whether they masquerade in the sciences, (, theories, not facts) philosophy, humanism, or the supernatural through some form of the occult. All are used to explain the issues of nature and man’s existence.

3. Compete for the Masses: The competing for the masses is what life is, in the world that we live in. Pseudo-science is doing exactly the same. Because big money is evolved in persuading the masses through manufactured, self-proclaimed, I hope so ‘theories’. Nowhere is this more true than in religion, no matter who’s religion is involved. Getting the masses to believe something will elevate the promoters of it right to the top and all the things that go with being on top. Communism for example saw religion as a competing force for the soul of man and the masses. Communism (extreme humanism through socialism) won this struggle in the last century. All men were to be equal before the god of humanism (man). Before long it became apparent that some were more equal than others. However, the masses had already believed in this god and we all know the results as I discussed in the last letter. The natural man and the masses are looking for a god of their own making to explain their existence. The God of Scripture calls individuals to follow His Son based on facts. He is not calling the masses that cannot receive what He has revealed to them. I do agree that none of these false religions are more valid than the other. They are only Satanic puffs of smoke according to the times that we live in. All of these Satanic lies are designed to plug man’s ears to the voice of the True Shepherd. Satan’s methods are effective for the masses and those who kick against the gourds.

4. No supernatural explanation supersedes natural explanation: A person who is not aware of the facts can say anything about anything. None of this means anything only the facts prove a point. I sent you facts that were documented in my first reply. Nobody can dispute these facts, even through many have tried. Nobody can say that they are anything but supernatural. For example; the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that the supernatural prophecies of the prophet Daniel were accurate. These scrolls that were found are dated 250 B. C. (written originally about 600-550 B. C.). This evaluation is by men skilled in the antiquities. The prophecies of Daniel chapters 2, 7, and 9 of the Messiah to come had not all been fulfilled till about 33 A. D. Was Jesus wrong to call Daniel a prophet (Matthew 24:15)?

Consider this question, was Jesus wrong to say that the supernatural is eternal, the natural but temporary? From someone God calls a prophet you rightfully expect the supernatural, the undeniable facts are that Daniel supplied clear evidence of the supernatural. The Spirit of God giving him the future (Daniel 2:28), Daniel wrote it down. So we who live 2500 years later can weigh the evidence.

The God of Israel has said he gave these prophecies. Nobody can dispute that with anything but emotion and not looking into the stated facts presented in Scripture. A person argues from ignorance if he does not deal with all the information available. This does not mean if you disagree with what I am saying that you are ignorant. It only means that you are disagreeing without all the information that you need to make a correct judgment. To dispute is fine but the facts must lead one to truth. But to dispute with the God of Israel is exactly what the Jews did who crucified Jesus. They could not believe their own prophetic Scriptures, given by their own prophets. Taking Jesus and killing Him, they were yet fulfilling the prophecies written about themselves (Isaiah 6:9-12). All of this was supernaturally prophesied. I could refer to much more but this is enough for you to consider for now. The things of man are natural, and he lives in a natural world. The things of God are in the supernatural. Is it not a little foolish for man to judge God? Do we have the intelligent capabilities of doing that? God asked Job that question. God said to Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4). Isn’t this still a valid question for us?

5. Natural laws take place of former ideas: Here again we are in agreement. For example the religionists were the one’s who would not accept Galileo’s findings. Others in Columbus’s day thought the world was flat. The fact that Scripture clearly declares that the earth is round, had no effect on these people (Isaiah 40:22). Or take Ignaz Semmelweis who in 1840 worked in a hospital and saw many women die from infections in childbirth. The medical team had been examining cadavers before examining the women’s pelvic area who were birthing. Ignaz ordered all medical staff to wash their hands before examining the women. The death rate then dropped off considerably. He was of course labeled as not being a naturalist, and he was driven from the hospital. He then went to another hospital in Budapest and did the same thing and the death rate dropped as before. This the naturalists’ could not handle and he also was driven from this hospital. Finally with the naturalists and no doubt the religionists as well, he was driven into a mental hospital where he died. Today he is recognized as having done one of the greatest medical works of all time. In other words, he knew that germs were killing human beings. However, this was not new to the Israelites, for God gave them a formula to make an anti-bacterial wash (3800 years ago) after touching a dead body and instructed them to use it (Numbers Chapter 19). Circumcision has for many decades been known to stop medical problems for men, sometimes-serious problems. However, God told Israel that all the men-children born to the Israelites were to be circumcised.

There were 613 laws that God gave to Israel, today a great many of these laws have been adapted into modern cultures. The naturalists have had to agree that the God of Israel had already told the Israelites these things. Naturalists change with the blowing of the wind, the God of Israel changes not: “For I Am the Lord, I do not change.” (Malachi 3:6).

6. Imagination of the individual: We again are in agreement. True science does rely on natural laws. Charles Darwin was a naturalist. C. Darwin did not come up with the evolution theory, his grandfather believed something like it as to where people came from. C. Darwin just grabbed onto this and started to believe it himself, at least partly. Here are a couple of quotes from him:

  1. “I feel most deeply that this whole creation (yes creation) is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton! Let each man hope and believe what he can.”
  2. “To have the unthinking masses accept all that I say would be calamity…” The masses are the evolutionists of today. The well known scientist Richard Lewontin said: “We take the side of science (meaning evolution) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs because we have a prior commitment… to materialism”… In other words it does not matter what the facts are: “We cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” We agree it is the imagination of the individual that rejects true knowledge, for a hope in religion.

7. Nothing harmful with believing in superstitions: Superstitions are based on the spirit world activities and many times the imagination of a person. There is plenty of harm in being open to; untruths, illusionists, shamans, mediums, ufo’s, alien abductions, magic spells, séances, clairvoyants, and many other lies of the demonic world. I have worked with inmates in the Lane County Jail for almost 20 years. In that time I have seen men believe these things and do all kinds of evil things to others and themselves because they followed what they believed. Martin Luther said: “You become what you believe.” Some of these men are now on death row in the Salem Penitentiary. Jason was one of those men that I worked with for many months. He was raised in a local Pentecostal Church but he thought there was no harm in following these dark powers. Jason never became a Christian as far as I know. But after he was sentenced to death, Jason came clean with me. One night he told me how he had killed the girl by believing in these dark powers (superstitions). He expressed how he had been brought into the presence of demonic spirits, and they had led him into doing what he did (he may have killed more than one girl). Furthermore, now that his life was over he told me he was not going to listen to these spirits anymore. Jason wept at what these spirits had led him into and I wept with him. Jason was raised on the Bible but he thought there would be no harm in following these superstitions of darkness.

8. Superstitions contradict natural laws: We are in agreement. Refer back to the statement of the well known naturalist and scientist Rechard Lewontin. “We take the side of science (evolution) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of it .” I have spoke over the years with many people in; cults, sects, occult, naturalists, philosophers, etc. Truth fails to convince those who have a will in the matter. The masses continue to believe according to their will. In Scripture this is called “will.worship.” ‘For a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.’ The Scripture shows us this about those who refuse truth: “The fool has said in his heart there is no God,” (I don’t want Him). On the other hand I have seen many who have dropped their religion to follow Him who does not lie, who Himself is the ‘TRUTH.’ The truth not by self assertion, but by provable facts.

9. Dangerous to hold superstition above natural law: WE AGREE. As my last paper related to these people who believe in superstition (humanism, evolution, etc) are dangerous. In the 1900’s it has been said; 100 to 170 million people were killed because of the superstitions of men who were; naturalists, humanists, evolutions, socialists, and the occult, which Hitler believed in. Another example, of dangerous superstitions prevailing in men’s hearts and minds happened this way. In 1971 a rock collector spotted some bones that had recently been exposed by a bulldozer near Moab, Utah. The rock collector brought an anthropologist, a journalist, and a photographer to the site. The lower half of two human skeletons was removed. They were taken to the university for study. The rock formation was confirmed to be 100 to 140 feet deep where the skeletons were taken from. The same as the rock formation nearby where dinosaur’s bones are found. This information was totally hidden from the masses. Later in the year 1990 Dr. Don Patton went back and excavated the skeletons of 10 modern humans. They were buried under 50 to 140 feet of sandstone. Geologists say this is called “Lower Cretaceous” and is according to them 140 million years old. This is yet another set of facts being covered up by those in the naturalist religion.

10. Still living in the age of superstition: Again we are in agreement, with the exception that we are still living in the age of superstition. I have included a paper with past superstitions of different people groups in the world. Now superstitions are more sophisticated. I thought you might find it interesting. In this paper and the ones before I have shown that the masses are still following superstitions with disastrous results.

11. Superstitions manipulate the public: This is something we see exactly the same way. People believe lies, mirages, illusions, superstitions, slight of the hand, because they do not have a love of the truth. The evil in the human heart will not let the facts guide them into truth. The Apostle Paul under the power of God wrote it this way: “And with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). Superstitions on a nature level are addressed on the next item #12.

12. CFC’s breakdown of ozone now banned: CFC or Chlorofluorocarbon = O3. This banning of cfc’s is manipulation of the public through unproven natural religion. Dr. Dixy lee Ray chairman of the Atomic energy commission, an expert in the field, calls it “environmental overkill.” For example: volcano Mount Erebus in Antarctica has released 1000 tons of chloride daily for 20 years. It produces 50 times more chloride annually than all the cfc’s manufactured annually before cfc’s were banned. Naturalist religionists have fooled the masses again. For true scientists the provable facts show something totally inconclusive. True science looks for facts; it is thought the variation in ozone is caused by multiple factors. They are; sun spots, planetary waves, major storms, El Nino, seasonal changes in weather patterns.

13.Religious questions: The reasoning of the natural man is most certainly not always wrong in natural things. The natural man has a conscience and he can listen to it for direction and a good share of the masses do. The character of a person is many times the product of: parental influence, religion, society, laws, desire, conscience, and even fear of consequences.

14. Would you be a Christian if there were no heaven or hell? Strange as it may seem this is the very reason some men have become naturalists and evolutionists. To them the idea of eternal heaven or hell is more than they want to entertain, and they have stated it. To them, evolutionary religion offers them a way out, they think. The Scriptures tell us this “Fear of God (reverence) is the beginning of all knowledge” (Psalms 111:10). Eternity is forever; this world is running down and is only temporary, as all true scientists agree. Which is wiser to plan for a temporary life (tomorrow, 5, 10, 30 years living here in the body) or for eternity by listening to the One who dwells in eternity, and can, and has proved it? (Isaiah 57:15). Jesus said: “All that the Father has given to Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” (John 6:37). This means that all those predestined to be Christians will come to the Son of God. Again Jesus said to His disciples: “You have not chosen Me but I have chosen you”… (John15:16).

When we are hungry we have a message sent to our brain telling us to eat. When we are sleepy we have a message sent to our brain to tell us to sleep. Why should it be so unusual when we know that we have violated the laws of God for our brain to tell us to receive the remedy that God has provided? Is it not just normal to take the answer God has given us? Some would like us to believe there is no such thing as sin. Others would like us to believe there is no right or wrong, only how you feel about any actions. Others say man does not have a soul. Others say when you die that is the end of all existence for man. All of these ‘hope so’ beliefs are made for the man who does not accept provable facts. So humanism, evolution, philosophy, self will, idolatry, religious culture, pseudo-science, etc, are expressions of the natural man trying to build his own god. Man building his own god has gone on since the first of creation. When Cain approached God with his own ideas, he had formed his own religion to relate to his existence, before his Creator.

15. Bacteria, amoeba, etc, on another planet: Human beings are not the Creator, so we know little about what is on other planets. However, my own opinion is that they will not find life on other planets. The government has been listening for 40 or 50 years on radio telescopes for radio waves, they have heard nothing.

16. Finding holes in evolution: We agree again.

17. Labeling people: I do not label you. I see you as a person trying to find answers to many things that most people ask themselves and ask others about. I trust you are seeking truth through facts. I have sought and do seek the same. I would still like you to answer the questions that I proposed to you in the last paper about your understanding of the make up of man. (#2) Again as at the beginning of this paper, the questions concerning spirit, soul, and the body are important. I feel if we could discuss this to our mutual understanding and have a point-by-point agreement or disagreement we could both be enlarged. Is that not the reason for a discussion?


Debate 4, David writes:

My dad has always told me not to believe everything you read. So I’ve tried to keep an objective eye on determining facts from fiction. An endless process really, that can lead to a lifetime of headaches. What can save you from these headaches is determining the relevance of the subject, the value of its truth. If a piece of work is presented as a fact, but falls into fiction, we can still gain knowledge and wisdom. “The boy who cried wolf” does not have to be a true story for us to gain wisdom from it. Truth is a trophy by those who can slander an opposing view. Even when you turn on the news you still have to question its merit. I’m sure there are still people out there who believe we found WMDs or that Sadaam was linked to 9/11, even though the 9/11 report states otherwise. Whoever becomes victorious, determines the truth. (#1)

Thus the common saying “history is written by its victor.” So, it is safe to say, when looking at history, you are getting a one sided account unless you research more than one source. For example, if we look at the Kennedy assassination, according to the United States Government and the history taught to us in school, Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the president’s death. But if we look at forensic evidence and eyewitness accounts we can clearly see that there were more parties involved. In this instance, the ones who hold the most power have skewed our history. Can we be certain events happened the exact way history tells us? Can we logically deduce truths from history books two thousand years old? (#2)

It would seem then that all arguments would fall apart if we took one history book from two thousand years ago and said this is absolute truth. Then we would have to take all history books and make them absolute truth. But you could say the Bible is different from other books because it claims to be divined from God. (#3)

Under that rational we would have to take all books that claim to be divined from God, as truth. But the Bible is different. Those other books claim to be the word of God, but the Bible is the word of God. How do we know the Bible is the word of God? (#4)

Faith. (#5) Faith has to enter the picture somewhere in order t0 take absolute truth from one source and not another. (#6)

We can use archaeology and other history sources to show that cities/places mentioned in the Bible existed at one time. But we cannot show for certain that Lazarus rose from the dead, Jesus walked on water or that Jesus put the soldier’s ear back in place. We can’t take peoples testimonies as being absolute truth (#7)

Otherwise we would have to be Mormons as well. Now if you want to claim that your religious book is divine and others are not, I believe your prophecy method could be quite convincing if you could use your religious book to predict an event that has not happened yet. (#8)

Open-mindedness – if new evidence is found an open-mind will reevaluate its current position. (#9)

Since no books can predict future events and if the Bible can, then I would have to reevaluate my current position regarding the Bible. (#10) Thus we have no evidence of life on other planets, if life was found would you then make reevaluate your current position on fundamental elements creating life? (#11)

If not, then what kind of evidence would have to found in order for you to reevaluate your current position? (#12)

As for the makeup of man, I refrain from all supernatural explanations. Not to say that it is impossible for humans to have a soul or spirit, but the evidence is lacking, so I place no real concern on the matter. (#13) I have to make a retraction; I said, “Historically no supernatural explanation has superseded a natural explanation.” I meant to say, “Superseded a natural law.” I do believe natural laws supersede supernatural explanations. You said evolutionists are breaking this rule. What specific laws of nature are being broken? (#14)

Natural laws supersede supernatural explanations. This is a logical law. If we apply the two laws as inputs, then the output is a law. A = Time is a constant B = Speed of light as a constant A x B = C, C = the distance traveled from point a to point b. (#15)

Why would God give us natural laws to tell us how old the universe is (#16), then tell us something different in the Bible? (#17)

Why would God create a false perception of time? Why would someone believe the false perception of time scenario over a natural law scenario? “Essentially mankind has only two choices: either we have evolved out of the slime and can be explained strictly in the materialistic sense, meaning that we are made of nothing but the material, or we have been made on a heavenly pattern.” (#18) – Douglas F. Kelley – Creation and Change Published by Mentor (slogan: Encouraging Christians to Think)

Black and White fallacy: Arguing with the use of sharp distinctions despite any factual or theoretical support for them. (#17)

Does Kelley’s statement fall into the category of “Black and White fallacy? (#20) Yes. Kelley implies that there is not only no middle ground, but that there is no possible explanation other than the two that he presents. This is the backbone to creationism. Creationists must push this idea that there are only two possible ways to explain how we got here. If they can get the recipient to agree then they can begin their attacks on evolution. Once they’ve raised enough doubt for the recipient to be wary of evolution then creationism appears to be the logical choice. This can be done without even presenting any evidence for creationism. Just like in politics, it is always easier to tear down your opponent than to prove your own worth. Chemists have been able to prove the evolution process by manipulating cells. (#21)

This has only been proven in microevolution. It does seem plausible then that if cells can mutate, and we are made of cells, then macroevolution is possible. The idea of evolution is used to fight AIDS from spreading. By rotating prescription drugs they can’t eliminate the virus but keep it’s numbers from growing. If one set of prescription drugs could kill off 90% of the virus, the 10% that is resilient to the drug will begin to reproduce its numbers, making that prescription drug no longer effective. Taking a new type of prescription drug will eliminate 90% of the current virus, and so on. Due to the fact that there is biodiversity in viruses and all species, we can use this idea to fight current diseases/viruses.

Evolution is not in the chemical reaction that initially formed life. Evolution is the process that creates the variety of life. Evolution is an idea that can be transformed and molded. Right now it is the best explanation we have and until a valid alternative is presented, this idea will stay relevant. (#22)


Debate 4 Dennis writes:

David: We did discuss some of these points at lunch the other day, but I will put it on paper so we can consider the truth or falseness of the issues discussed. Again I will number what I see as your most important points and number my answers according to the numbers I have put on your paper.

Your Dad gave you the right advice; hold fast only to what you know is true. Scripture tells us this, “…let God be true but every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4). It simply means no man is like God, who is 100% true. The Spirit of God commands us to prove or test all things, and hold fast to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:10). This is especially true with people in religion.

1 Truth: I do think we understand this the same way. However, it is not always the truth that the victor writes history. In the matter of Jesus and the followers of Jesus, they all were losers as far as the Jews and Rome were concerned. In Roman history, Christians are spoken about but not in length. Josephus, the Jewish historian, records the history of the Jews most accurately. Josephus lived with Vespasian the Roman Emperor after he lost the war in Galilee to the Romans. Neither of these historians had a lot to say about the Christians. However, the Christian history is quite detailed, through the Scripture, and though the so-called church fathers. And it is true that as far as the world was concerned Christianity was a non-issue. But the historical record of the words of Jesus and the apostles are as accurate as if they were written today. Nobody questions the truthfulness of the Roman historians, or Jewish historians, without some reason. If there is a reason to question a historian, then they should be questioned.

2. Can we deduce truth from books two thousand years old? This is a good question. In Roman history we have an account of Mount Vesuvius erupting. As you may know Pompeii was covered with volcanic gas and it killed all the people there instantly. The city was then covered with volcanic ash from the volcano. Sometime ago the city was completely uncovered and everything was found to be as it was two thousand years ago. No discrepancies were found to fault any historical record. Through the record of Josephus, which is two thousand years old, the account of Masada, and how the Roman General Flavius Silva captured it is seen. In the archeological findings at Masada, the findings confirm the accurate account of Josephus’s historical record. The Roman camps below Masada are still visually seen today. The same is true for the ramp the Romans built to overcome Masada.

Caiaphas was the High Priest when Jesus was arrested and interrogated as written in Matthew 26:57. It was the practice of the Jews to bury their dead in a cave for a year then go in and take the bones and put them in ossuaries (a stone box). Whole families were put into the same cave in this manner. The ossuaries were sometimes inscribed with the name of the occupant. About five years ago a cave was uncovered outside of Jerusalem; in it was an ossuary with the name Caiaphas. Archeologists who examined this ossuary are sure it is the same Caiaphas as found in the book of Matthew. The reason they are so sure is that the high position that Caiaphas occupied would put him right where they found what are purported to be his bones.

Upon the Apostle Paul’s arriving on the island of Paphos a man named Sergius Paulus who was proconsul on the island of Paphos, asked Paul to tell him the gospel (Acts 13:6-7). Then Sergius Paulus believed and became a Christian (13:12). Many years ago, maybe 60 or more, while digging on this island they found a stone with Serius Paulus name on it as the proconsul of the island. I had at one time the book showing the inscription.

A bi-monthly magazine named BAR (Biblical Archeological Review), a Jewish magazine, a couple of years ago had about 12 archeological artifacts of Old Testament Kings, and others verifying their place in biblical history. These artifacts can be pinned down to exact people in Scripture.

The Pharaoh’s of Egypt made record of their exploits in hieroglyphics, usually of their victories in conquest. Necho conquered Judah and recorded it in hieroglyphics. It is recorded by Israel in, 2 Kings 23:34; 2 Chronicles 36:4-5.

In Matthew 24:2, Jesus said concerning the temple not one stone will be left upon another, they shall all be torn down. This He said in 33 A. D. In 70 A. D. the Roman General Titus attempting to conquer Jerusalem gave instructions to the solders not to destroy the temple, according to the record of Josephus. However, in the fighting the temple caught on fire and burned all the wood and fabric. The gold in the temple was wrapped around the wood, in the heat of the fire, the gold melted down into the cracks of the stones. After the Roman victory every stone in the temple site was taken down to get at the gold.

When I was in Rome a few years ago, we were at the Coliseum. Next to the Coliseum is an arch; it was built for the victory of Titus over Israel (70 A D). Its stone carvings show the loot taken and the captives; all of this is recorded in Josephus’s historical record. There is much more but this gives just a sample of accuracy of the past record being verified.

3. The Bible claims to be divine: You are right the Bible does claim to be divine (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:10-11).

4. How can we know that the Bible is the Word of God: This is a good question. There are two good proofs to discern the validity of this claim. One is prophecy, I have dealt with this in the first answer to your first letter. However, again the book of Daniel gives a clear prophesy of Alexander the Great, the third world empire. This prophecy was written about 600 to 550 B. C. In the prophecy of Daniel chapter 8:3-8, Alexander is seen breaking apart the Persian Empire and taking world dominance. Then Alexander is prophesied to die and four powers take his place. These four powers are four of his generals. History shows that these four generals each took a part of the empire that Alexander conquered. This is an established fact in history.

The second evidence is numerology. In the Bible numbers have a great significance. For example, take the number 10 in the Bible, in the Old Testament and the New Testament it is associated with responsibility. A few examples are: Israel tempted God 10 times (Numbers 14:22). Ten plagues were put on Pharaoh, without Pharaoh responding. Ten spies died by plague (Numbers 14:36). Nabal in ten days failed in responsibility and he died (1Sameul 25:38). In the New Testament ten times Jesus says “I Am”, this means man is responsible to respond to Him who is the great “I Am,” Jehovah of Exodus 3:14. There are ten assurances of security in Romans 8:28-29, to those in Christ.

Take the number 12, it is the number God has used for man in government. The 12 tribes of Israel, 12 Jewish months of the year, the 12 spies sent in to spy out the land, the Israelites say amen 12 times to the 12 curses in Deuteronomy chapter 27. In the New Testament there are 12 Apostles, Jesus sent 12 out to do miracles. In the Revelation there are 12 gates in the heavenly Jerusalem, 12 foundations to the city, 12 fruits are bore by the tree of life.

The number 40, is the number for testing; when Noah went into the ark it rained 40 days and nights, 40 days and nights Moses was on the mountain, Moses was 40 when he fled from Pharaoh, Moses stayed in the wilderness 40 years, Israel wandered in the desert 40 years, Elijah went without food for 40 days. In the New Testament Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days, Paul received 40 stripes minus one 5 times, 40 men tried to kill Paul, the 40 took an oath not to eat or drink.

If we took up other numbers in Scripture we would see the same consistence in the meaning of numbers in both New and Old Testaments. These numbers are arranged in the same way, they clearly show a divine hand in Scripture.

5. Faith has to enter somewhere: It is true what you say faith does have to enter somewhere. Faith to truth or faith to fiction is the issue. For the Christian it is faith to revealed facts. For example, Mormonism believes that the Indians in this country are actually Jews. Why, because the book of Mormon states it as fact. However with the DNA testing of roots of ancestry it can be ascertained where a person originated according to peoples ancestry. Brigham Young University conducted just such tests to prove the book of Mormon is true. After testing 150 different Indian tribes the results proved that, not one Indian has Jewish DNA, as taught in the book of Mormon. They were found to be Asiatic DNA. What does this testing prove to everyone? It is this; the book of Mormon is a fairy tale. It was Solomon Spalding who wrote the Book of Mormon in 1812, as a novel. Yet there are 12 million people who believe Joseph Smith, not the God of Holy Scripture.

This is also true in a smaller degree in orthodox churches. Many will believe in their church, denominational teaching, their pastor, how they feel, what they want to believe, etc. That is why there is so much confusion and division in Christian churches today. Because of a misplaced faith, and not the love of truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10). Scripture puts Jesus as the Christ of God, and provides adequate proof for any honest seeker of truth to find out if this is true. Jesus said that: “I AM the way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6).

6. Faith from one source and not another: Anyone who seeks truth has to let the facts direct the path of what one is following. People’s lives are a result of what they believe. Martin Luther said: “You become what you believe.” Jesus said: “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.” (Matthew 12:35). If we believe false things the evil in our nature will find food to nourish and make it grow. If we believe Him who is the Truth our life will reveal that. Jesus said it would all be revealed in the Day of Judgment (Matthew 12:36). We have discussed in past papers what men believe as they follow (secular humanism) and the result of believing a lie. Truth is truth no matter where it comes from. Satan quoted Scripture in Psalms chapter 91 to tempt Jesus (Matthew 4:3-11). What he quoted was true, the way he was using it was a lie. This goes on all the time in man’s pursuit of truth, yet man is willing to believe a lie.

7. Take people’s testimony as truth: What you are saying is absolutely true. God has said that men do not tell the truth (Romans 3:4). Testimony must be based on facts, true facts. In a court of law a testimony is used to back up the facts. This is also true in Scripture, the testimony of the prophets, Christ Jesus, and the apostles are backing up the facts. There is plenty of evidence to see if these testimonies are true. Not many people will die to back up a lie unless they do not know it is a lie. However, Jesus died because He followed the truth. The same is true of the apostles’ who said they were eyewitnesses to the person and glory of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:1-2; Acts 1:30; 9:3-5). Many of them are purported to have died a martyr’s death in following Him.

Religious people and church people may be some of the hardest people to persuade of the truth of known facts. That is why religion does not bring people into the knowledge of the truth. Only receiving the truth into the heart will allow for the truth to direct the person into more of the truth. Jesus said: “I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth, and everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” (John 18:37). This He said before Pilate, at His trial, Pilate said to Him, “what is truth.” Is that not what men are still trying to figure out today?

8. Prophecy of future events: I think you have proposed a reasonable point. I have pointed out some of the prophecies of the past with their dates of prophesying. I also gave the person of Christ as the object of the prophecy and dates of their fulfillment. Let us look at some immediate prophecies and some future prophecies. To understand prophecy as it relates to man on the earth, there are two main issues that these prophecies center around.

1. The promised Messiah. 2. The nation of Israel.

First, Israel’s promised Messiah; in the Old Testament there are many prophecies of a suffering Messiah. There are also many prophecies of a Messiah reigning on the throne of David, and subduing His enemies. These prophecies have confused some Rabbi’s and some Rabbis have come to the conclusion that there must be two Messiahs. Jesus the suffering servant was not the Messiah of Israel’s choice. So they got rid of Him and looked for the Messiah who would sit on David’s throne, and destroy their enemies as many of the prophecies of the Messiah predicted. The prophecies and fulfillment of the suffering Messiah is, what I gave you in the first letter. Now, let’s look at the prophecies of the Messiah ruling and reigning.

An outline of these events from our present time is this, Israel was predicted to be in their land and to build a third temple and a fourth. Israel was totally defeated by the Roman General Titus in 70 D. Then a Jewish man (Bar Kokhba) led another revolt in 132-135 A. D. After that revolt the nation of Israel was so destroyed that it ceased to exist as a nation. This state of affairs existed for 1900 hundred years. In 1948 Israel became a nation again. In Israel, preparations for a third Temple have been in process for many years.

In the early 1800s a group of Christians began to look at prophecy in Scripture and to study it. When they did, they found the Scriptures prophesied that Israel would be a nation again and would live in the land of Israel. Also that Israel would build a third and fourth temple. Church people at that time did not believe this at all, and ridiculed the whole idea. (This was not new, as Scripture threatens many religious people). Today some people in Israel have already made the priestly garments for those who will serve in the temple. A year or two ago, a group of Israelites tried to take a corner stone into the temple mount area and set it for the start of the third temple. Palestinians caused a big riot because of the starting of the third temple. The interesting thing about this is that the Jews in Israel do not believe these prophecies. Yet they are still doing what is in their hearts, and fulfilling Scriptures that they do not believe to be true. This was told to every Christian through prophecy two thousand years ago.

Another Prophecy is that the Roman Empire would come back together in a confederation of nations. Europe is now and has been for some time embarking on a course of a European Common Market unity. They have coined the same money for this unity; they have a leader of this unity, and a trade for the common good of all in the ECM. This seems to be the very thing that one would expect to see when the prophecy would come to consummation. Daniel’s prophecy clearly shows us that this confederation of Rome will come back together. Incidentally, the official name of the ECM is the Treaty of Rome.

Another prophecy is that Israel will be surrounded by enemies, can anyone deny, that is all Israel has is enemies, except for the United States.

Daniel prophesied that in the time of the end knowledge should greatly increase. Has this not happened in the last 100 years? Some have said, that now in our time knowledge doubles every ten years.

Scripture prophesied that in the last days a great falling away would take place. This specifically means the professing church. Is this being fulfilled today? Nobody can deny that powers are attacking the church today, as never before. For example: homosexual marriage sanctioned by the church, Homosexual clergymen and lesbian clergy officiating over congregations, women clergy and preachers, denial of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, feminist movement becoming a part of the church practices, unisex in the church becoming the standard to judge relationships of men and women, abortion rights in the church, the standard of the unbelieving world becoming the standard of the churches, evolution accepted as fact, etc. Also cults (Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, Christian Scientist, Theosophy, Spiritualism, Seventh Day Adventists, Science of the Mind, Unitarianism, etc) are growing by leaps and bounds and are being accepted as Christian. Some are growing worldwide. Hardly any of these spiritual attacks against the Church were happening 175 years ago. These attacks on the Church are not going to go away.

There is many more prophecies that we could look at if you want to have an in-depth look at what has been written in prophecy.

9. Opened mindedness: For anyone who seeks truth, to change ones position, truth must be involved. No one knows everything that happens in the universe, such foolishness is not mine here. For the sake of your point, this is what is true; what God has revealed to man on the earth does not change. If there were life on some other planet it would change nothing for man on the earth. I personally do not believe that there is life on another planet, but I could be wrong. Scripture tells us that God spoke and the worlds came into being. It does not say what is on the other planets. Any man can be wrong, but the truth itself cannot be wrong or else it would not be the truth. As Pilate was puzzled about what truth is, so are men today.

10. No books can predict future events: This is not entirely true. The Bible does clearly predict the future. To a lesser degree men have predicted the future through understanding of the nature of the direction of groups, nations, marriages, conduct of individuals, etc. I do not think that you mean that the immediate future cannot be predicted. For example a mother tells her son; Johnny if you touch that stove you will get burnt. Johnny may not touch the stove for a year, but when he does, he fulfills prophecy.

When people study the soul of men and women, they can tell to a degree what their future will be. Tests are available for such a purpose. Employers use these tests for hiring purposes, these tests are reliable. There are books written on predicting the future of the individuals according to their personality. In the occult world of dark powers, the future is also predicted, and sometimes with accuracy. The first is soulish prediction, the second, is spiritual prediction. The devil knows the future, and uses it for his own purposes (Matthew 8:29). However, the devil is a liar, and you never know when you are getting the truth from him.

11. Creating life: No scientist has ever created life; they have only rearranged the chemicals. Rearrangement of chemicals has only brought about a reaction of the chemicals, not in any sense has life been brought forth. This was attempted as far back as the 1950s, without anything but failure. This is not my evaluation of these kinds of tests, but the evaluation of the scientists.

12. Reevaluate current position: If life in any form were found on any other planet other than earth, it would not change truth that is built on facts. It would mean that we only know what has been shown to us; we do not know what has not been shown to us. Life on other planets does not change anything on earth.

13. Does man have a soul or a spirit: The definition of modern psychology is the study of the soul of man. The word psychology is taken from the Greek word, Psuche, it means soul. If we break down man in three parts as Scripture does we can see the reasonableness of it. In Scripture ‘spirit, soul, and body’ (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12) are clearly defined, even by how they are used in Scripture. The “soul” is made of three parts: mind, emotions and will.

A-1. The mind is what controls the brain. The brain carries the program to tell the body what to do. The brain is programmed to do what ever the mind directs.

B-1. The emotions are generally the outcome of what the mind is thinking. This may sound simplistic, because if the body feels pain the emotions are involved. Man is a unit not apart from another part.

C-1. The will is the determination in man to do or not to do. The will carries the message to the brain for action, if any.

The ‘spirit’ in man also consists of three parts. They consist of this: In man’s spirit are found: conscience, the ability to communicate with the spirit world and spiritual intuition.

A-2. the conscience;’ Can anyone deny that man has a conscience? I do not doubt that there are some people who would deny man has a conscience.

B-2. the ability to communicate with the spirit world, the dark powers, or the Spirit of God. One may not acknowledge that there is within us something that is able to see with our spirit, or to be under the influence of dark principalities. I have known many people like this, however their lives proved that they were following what they said they did not believe.

C-2. A natural spiritual intuition; spiritual intuition is like you perceiving something without anybody telling you about it. Most people have had this experience at some time in their life.

14. Specific laws of nature are being broken in evolution: Macroevolution goes from a theory to a supernatural leap, in an attempt to explain what there is no evidence or proof for. No intermediate forms of life have ever been found. The DNA code is just like the mathematical formula for pi. Pi or 3.14, may go on forever in decimals but it will always be pi. It will never turn into anything else. You may call the decimals mutations of pi, but they will never change what pi is.

Believing in macroevolution is a leap into the supernatural. Supernatural because, all mutations according to this theory ‘just happen’ and are upward into a different DNA. We are told to believe that macro mutations of trillions and trillions of times all upward produced male and female in every species of: plant life, animal life and oceanic life. We are to believe all of this without any intelligent thought on any personages’ part. I once read a booklet that said: “people will believe anything in the name of religion.” Macroevolution falls into that category.

15. Speed of light is constant: The current theory in the matter of the speed of light is that it may be slowing down. If scientists are thinking that now, then what about the past? Did it change then as well?

16. Natural law to tell us how old the universe is: Natural law does not create full grown men, only babies in the womb. Adam we are told was created a full-grown man. Why would it be any less reasonable to expect that God created a full-grown universe? If we went into the Garden of Eden and saw Adam after he was created, would we know if he were ten billion years or a day old? Adam was originally created to live forever and he would not have aged.

17. God gave us natural laws, something different in the Bible: There is no place in Scripture that tells us how old the universe is. The age of man is deduced from the genealogical record and given ages of men’s lives in Scripture and other known records. These records are found in Scripture and other sources of known history.

18. Evolved out of the slime: It has been said that if a person can be made to believe that he is nothing more than slime, next they will make a monkey out of him. If man lived and followed what is only proven fact, this whole concept of evolution would disappear over night.

19. Black and white fallacy: Using sharp distinctions draws out the difference between the two points of view. This is important to any person attempting to arrive at what is the factual evidence. Every difference of viewpoint does exactly that.

20. Kelley’s statement, no middle ground: What Mr. Kelley may see as no middle ground, others who do not believe in creation have thought to see other possibilities.

These other possibilities I think would have far more validity than evolution.

  1. We came here from space ships.
  2. Some have proposed that the apes actually came out of the man (planet of the apes)? There are without doubt many more theories.

21. Prove evolution process by manipulating cells: I have answered this in #14. In general I have no problem with what you are saying here. Mutation within the DNA is possible.

22. The idea will stay relevant: Again I believe you are right. Evolution will stay relevant because as some evolutionists have stated; the idea of creation implies a Creator, this they cannot accept. They do not say they cannot accept creation because of evidence, but because of the human heart not wanting to be responsible to his Creator. Some evolutionists have publicly stated it as such.


David; I have included a work up on spirit, soul and body that you may find of interest.

Debate 5, David submits an exposition:


A famous legend (perhaps even true) from the early days of Darwinism provides a good organizing theme for understanding the centrality and importance of evolution both in science and for human life in general. A prominent English lady, the wife of a lord or a bishop (yes, they may marry in the Church of England), exclaimed to her husband when she grasped the scary novelty of evolution: “Oh my dear, let us hope that what Mr. Darwin says is not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it will not become generally known!”

Scientists invoke this familiar story to laugh at the recalcitrant stodginess of old belief and breeding – especially the risible image of the upper classes keeping a revolutionary fact of nature in the Pandora’s box of their own private learning. Thus, the lady of this anecdote enters history as a quintessential patrician fool. Let me suggest, however, if only to organize the outline of this introduction, that we reconceptualize her as a prophet. For what Mr. Darwin said is clearly true, and it has also not become generally known (or, at least in the United States, albeit uniquely in the Western world, even generally acknowledged).

Evolution as True

The task of science is twofold: to determine, as best we can, the empirical character of the natural world; and to ascertain why our world operates as it does, rather than in some other conceivable, but unrealized, way – in other words, to specify facts and validate theories. Science, as we professionals always point out, cannot establish absolute truth; thus, our skepticism need not be extended to the point of nihilism, and we may surely state that some facts have been ascertained with sufficient confidence that we may designate them as “true” in any legitimate, vernacular meaning of the work. (Perhaps I cannot be absolutely certain that the earth is round rather than flat, but the roughly spherical shape of our planet has been sufficiently well verified that I need not grant the “flat earth society” a platform of equal time, or even any time at all, in my science classroom). Evolution, the basic organizing concept of all the biological sciences, has been validated to an equally high degree, and may therefore be designated as true or factual.

In discussing the truth of evolution, we should make a distinction, as Darwin explicitly did, between the simple fact of evolution – defined as the genealogical connection among all earthly organisms, based on their descent from a common ancestor, and the history of any lineage as a process of descent with modification – and theories (like Darwinian natural selection) that have been proposed to explain the causes of evolutionary change.

Three broad categories of evidence best express the factuality of evolution. First, direct evidence of human observation, guided by an explicit theory since Darwin’s publication in 1859, but buttressed by data on longer periods of breeding for improved crop plants and domesticated animals, provides hundreds of exquisitely documented examples of the small-scale changes that our theories anticipate over such geologically brief periods of time. These include the familiar cases of changing pigmentation in moth wings as an adaptive response to substrates darkened by industrial soot, altered beak shapes in Galapagos species of Darwin’s finches as climates and food resources change, and the development of antibiotic resistance by numerous strains of bacteria. No one – not even among creationists – has denied this overwhelming weight of evidence in the small, but we also need proof that such minor changes can accumulate through geological time into the substantial novelties that build the history of life’s expanding diversity.

We must therefore turn to a second category of direct evidence from transitional stages of major alterations found in the fossil record. A common claim, stated often enough to merit the label of “urban legend,” holds that no such transitional forms exist and that paleontologists, dogmatically committed to evolution, have either withheld this information from the public or have claimed that the fossil record is too imperfect to preserve the intermediates that must once have existed. In fact, although the fossil record is indeed spotty (a problem with nearly all historical documents, after all), the assiduous work of paleontologists has revealed numerous elegant examples of sequences of intermediary forms (not just single “in between” specimens) joining ancestors in proper temporal order to very different descendants – as in the evolution of whales from terrestrial Mammalian ancestors through several intermediate stages, including Ambulocetus (literally, the walking whale), the evolution of birds from small running dinosaurs, of mammals from reptilian ancestors, and a threefold increase in brain size during the last 4 million years of human evolution.

Finally, a third major category of more indirect, but ubiquitous, evidence allows us to draw a clear inference of change from a different historical past by observing the quirks and imperfections, present in all modern organisms, that make no sense except as holdovers from an otherwise altered (that is, evolved) ancestral state – that is, except as products of evolution. This principle governs the analysis of all kinds of historical series, not just biological evolution. We can infer that an abandoned railroad line once linked a group of well-spaced and linearly ordered towns (that would have no other reason for such an alignment). We can also identify social change from a more rural past by the etymological evidence of many words now used in very different meanings in our modern industrial world (“broadcast” as a mode of planting by throwing out seeds by the handful; or “pecuniary” advantages, literally measured in cattle, from the Latin pecus, or cow. In the same manner, all organisms carry useless remnants of formerly functional structures that make no sense except as holdovers from different ancestral states- the tiny vestiges of leg bones, invisibly embedded in the skin of certain whales, or the nonfunctional nubs of pelvic bones in some snakes, surviving as vestiges of ancestors with legs.

Evolution as not Generally Known or Acknowledged

No scientific revolution can match Darwin’s discovery in degree of upset to our previous comforts and certainties. In the only conceivable challenge, Copernicus and Galileo moved Our cosmic location from the center of the universe to a small and peripheral body circling a central sun. But this cosmic reorganization only fractured our concept of real estate; Darwinian evolution, on the other (and deeper) hand, revolutionized our view of our own meaning and essence (insofar as science can address such questions at all): Who are we? How did we get here? How are we related to other creatures, and in what manner?

Evolution substituted a naturalistic explanation of cold comfort for our former conviction that a benevolent deity fashioned us directly in his own image, to have dominion over the entire earth and all other creatures – and that all but the first days of earthly history have been graced by our ruling presence. In evolutionary terms, however, humans represent but one tiny twig on an enormous and luxuriantly branching tree of life, with all twigs interconnected by descent, and the entire tree growing (so far as science can tell) by a natural and lawlike process. Moreover, the unique and minuscule twig of Homo sapiens emerged in a geological yesterday, and has flourished for only an eye blink of cosmic immensity (about 100,000 years for our species and only 6-8 million years for our entire lineage since our branchlet split from the node of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. By contrast, the oldest bacterial fossils on Earth arose 3,600 million years ago).

We might mitigate the challenge of these basic facts if we could espouse a theory of evolutionary change that remained congenial to our old comforts about human necessity and inherent superiority – as in the common misconception that evolution implies predictable and progressive pathways of change, and that human origins (however belated) may therefore be viewed as both inevitable and culminating. But our best understanding of how evolution operates-that is, our preferred theory for the mechanism of evolutionary change (as contrasted with the simple factuality of evolution, discussed in the last section) – does not even grant us this ideological comfort. For our favored and well-attested theory, Darwinian natural selection, offers no solace or support for these traditional hopes about human necessity or cosmic importance.

Hence, when I ask myself why evolution, although true by our strongest scientific confidence, has not become generally known or acknowledged in the United States – that is, nearly 150 years after Darwin’s publication, and in the most technologically advanced nation on earth – I can only conclude that our misunderstanding of the broader implications of Darwinism, in particular our misreading of his doctrine as doleful, or as subversive to our spiritual hopes and needs, rather than as ethically neutral and intellectually exhilarating, has impeded public acceptance of our best documented biological generality. Hence, I treat the meaning of Darwinism, or the implications of evolutionary theory (rather than the mere understanding of evolution’s factuality), as my major theme in trying to explicate why such an evident fact has not become generally known.

Public difficulty in grasping the Darwinian theory of natural selection cannot be attributed to any conceptual complexity – for no great theory ever boasted such a simple structure of three undeniable facts and an almost syllogistic inference therefrom. (In a famous, and true anecdote, Thomas Henry Huxley, after reading Origin of Species, could only say of Natural selection: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that myself.”) First, that all organisms produce more offspring than can possible survive; second, that all organisms within a species very, one from the other; third, that at least some of this variation is inherited by offspring. From these three facts, we infer the principle of natural selection: since only some offspring can survive, on average the survivors will be those variants that, by good fortune, are better adapted to changing local environments. Since these offspring will inherit the favorable variations of their parents, organisms of the next generation will, on average, become better adapted to local conditions.

The difficulties lie not in this simple mechanism but in the far-reaching and radical philosophical consequences—as Darwin himself well understood—of postulation a causal theory stripped of such conventional comforts as a guarantee of progress, a principle of natural harmony, or any notion of an inherent goal or purpose. Darwin’s mechanism can only generate local adaptation to environments that change in a direction less way through time, thus imparting no goal or progressive vector to life’s history. (In Darwin’s system, an internal parasite, so anatomically degenerate that it has become little more than a bag of ingestive and reproductive tissue within the body of its host, may be just as well adapted, and may enjoy just as much prospect of future success, as the most complex mammalian carivore, wily, fleet, and adept, living free on the savannas.) Moreover, although organisms may be well designed, and ecosystems harmonious, these broader features of life arise only as consequences of the unconscious struggles of individual organisms for personal reproductive success, and not as direct results of any natural principle operating overtly for such “higher” goods.

Darwin’s mechanism may sound bleak at first, but a deeper view should lead us to embrace natural selection (and a variety of other legitimate evolutionary mechanisms from punctuated equilibrium to catastrophic mass extinction) for two basic reasons. First, truthful science is liberating in the practical sense that knowledge of nature’s actual mechanisms gives us the potential power to cure and to heal when factual matters cause us harm. When, for example, we know how bacteria and other disease-causing organisms evolve, we can understand, and find means to combat, the development of antibiotic resistance, or the unusual mutability of the SIDS virus. Also, when we recognize how recently our so-called human races diverged from a common African ancestry, and when we measure the minuscule genetic differences that separate our groups as a result, then we can know why racism, the scourge of human relations for so many centuries, can claim no factual foundation in any real differences among human groups.

Second, and more generally, by taking the Darwinain “cold bath,” and staring a factual reality in the face, we can finally abandon the cardinal false hope of the ages —that factual nature can specify the meaning of our life by validating our inherent superiority, or by proving that evolution exists to generate us as the summit of life’s purpose. In principle, the factual state of the universe, whatever it may be, cannot teach us how we should live or what our lives should mean—for these ethical questions of value and meaning belong to such different realms of human life as religion, philosophy, and humanistic study. Nature’s facts can help us to realize a goal once we have made our ethical decisions on other grounds—as the trivial genetic differences among human groups, for example, can help us to understand human unity once we have agreed on the unalienable rights of all people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Facts are jus facts, in all their fascination, their pristine beauty, and sometimes, their unfortunate necessity (bodily decline and mortality, as the obvious example, and =ethical rectitude, or spiritual meaning, reside within other domains of human inquiry.

When we thought that factual nature matched our hopes and comforts all things bright and beautiful, and all things made for our superior selves— then we easily fell into the trap of equation actuality with righteousness. But when we sense the different fascination of evolution’s naturalistic ways, and of life’s astonishingly rich diversity and history of change, with Homo sapiens as but one contingent twig on the most luxuriant of all trees, then we finally become free to detach our search for ethical truth and spiritual meaning from our scientific quest to understand the facts and mechanisms of nature. Darwin, in defining the factual “grandeur of this view of life” (to quote the last line of Origin of Species), liberated us from asking too much of nature, thus leaving us free to comprehend whatever fearful fascination may reside “out there,” in full confidence that our quest for decency and meaning cannot be threatened thereby, and can emerge only from our own moral consciousness.

Stephen Jay Gould

Museum of Comparative Zoology

Harvard University

Debate 5, Dennis Writes:

David: I will address your schoolbook paper as before. I think we both agree that we are not scientists, and we must rely on those who are. The question is when you are listening to those who are, who is the most factual? Again we are not in a place to judge scientists for the most part. Only when they go beyond science and introduce religious and spiritual doctrines in an attempt to make everyone think that they are presenting science, here we should take exception. In the case of this paper from your science text book, it should be noted that Stephen Jay Gould and Thomas Henry Huxley are well-known humanists, evolutionists and atheists. They definitely have an agenda, which is obvious. And of course one would expect to be propagandized by such persons according to their humanist religion. I think the problem with most religionists is they cannot draw the line between fact and fantasy.

You brought up some good thoughts the other day on what one would expect to find if evolution were true. The answer to this I believe is an intact form of evolution, this is what evolutionists have looked for 300 years (time according to Stephen Gould) and have never found (according to paleontologist scientists). There are none except in the minds of those who wish us to believe them in spite of no plain evidence of facts. I do not say this because I know this, but from reading what many scientists who work in these fields say. The statement made by them is that no paleontologist in any museum in the world has one shred of evidence to back up such a claim. Seeing such evidence is all in the religious mind of the purser.

You have stated that 90% of scientists believe in evolution, and 10% do not. I do not know if this is true or not, however, it makes no difference who believes what. Only what is true, is what any one should believe. Think about it, if you lived in Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s, it may be that 90% of the people believed in Hitler and his direction of government, because people believed his religious propaganda. Germans were the god-men, and the super race was introduced as fact. The most educated people in Germany were running the government, and their ideas were working. A person could have said at that time; could these 90% be wrong? Those people that did not believe with the 90% were held up to scorn, and were put into concentration camps. Fifty million people died because they either believed a lie, or were drawn into the consequences of people who did believe the lie.

Let us consider the case ref. In the case of evolution as presented in your textbook paper, written by Steven Jay Gould. As all people know, nobody has seen evolution happen or the changing of D.N.A. to something outside of their species. Today if anybody on a school board wants to pursue true science in a quest for truth and wants to implement openness in the school where he or she has the power to change education to true science, every humanist religionist in the country will either sue them or threaten them in a hurtful way. The result is that evolutionary religion prevails through the ignorance of the masses. This is no different than the inquisitions of the dark ages.

We have a choice as to whom we are going to believe as far as people are concerned. A good question to think about is; Should Jesus of Nazareth in His day have listened to people like Stephen Jay Gould or Thomas Henry Huxley and dropped this whole idea of God creating man and the universe? If Jesus was really a prophet wouldn’t He have known that evolution was true, and dropped the ministry in His life of making a God known that does not exist? This idea that Jesus came from God, and was going back to God was false, and obvious to every religionist of every age. Why did Jesus miss it, if He really were as knowledgeable as He said He was? Why did Jesus continue the fable of Noah’s flood, Jonah and the big fish, and teach that He was Israel’s long awaited Messiah of God? Why did Jesus tell His disciples that if they followed Him they were going to be persecuted, rejected, and be put to death, and the whole time what He was telling them to believe was a lie? Of course the minority may not have thought that He told a lie. Was it because they looked to see if He had the credentials to prove His Messiah-ship?

So either what Jesus told us was the truth or a lie. If a lie, then why worry about anything, eternity, or life itself? Why not eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die? For if evolution is true there is no reason to live, because everything is scum and nothing we say, or do has any meaning. Why not just do anything and everything that comes into our heart?

I have often asked the inmates in jail the question; why don’t we just do away with the laws and everybody do what they want. For western societies laws are based on the Law of Moses. With no God, the Law of Moses is just another fable. The answer they give is unanimous, they want no part of such an idea. I believe the reason is this; they know what is in man more than most people may.

The religion of evolution releases man to just such an idea, as there are no consequences for our actions, eternal or otherwise. In evolution, we are told that to believe what our consciences are telling us is wrong. There is no God and no judgment. This is clearly the full story of evolution.

This religious direction of existence was acted out in every country that became a Communist country. As I have said in past papers, up to 170 million people in the last century lost their lives following this religion.

Stephen Gould in his paper asks three questions. Who are we? How did we get here? How are we related to other creatures, and in what manner? The facts point to a Creator; in the universe orderliness; in plant life orderliness; and in the animal kingdom orderliness. Man is the only creation of God who is acting out his rebellious and evil nature and because of it he does not know who he is, how he got here, and how he is to relate to others in the creation. As you know, the nature of Adam we are told is evil and all men are Adam’s progeny. We do not have to look far in the world to see if this is true. So there are two choices of whom are we going to believe? The preacher, and teacher from Harvard, or the One who says that He inhabits eternity (Micah 5:2)?


Debate 6, David writes:

I feel I need to make it clear on my intentions with all of these discussions. I have no desire to change your beliefs in any way. I only take issue with one main argument, that being the use of reason. (#1)

When it comes to taking the Bible literally I find more reason to believe otherwise. (#2)

I do not believe you can use reason to covert people into Christianity. (#3)

A lot of Christians believe due to personal experiences with God, or a revelation of some sort. This is what it would take in order for me to belief. (#4)

I have given countless Christians ample time to show me where my reasoning is flawed. (#5)

In response to giving Christians the reasons why I believe what I believe, some feel as though I’m attacking their beliefs. I’m not attacking their beliefs but defending mine.

My beliefs are based entirely on reasoning. (#6)

Reasoning is simply based everything on probability. Is A more probable than B? I know you believe Intelligent Design is more probable than evolution and me vice versa. There is more data to back up evolution than intelligent design. Though all my discussions with various Christians, I find a lot of them use hominems as reasonable arguments. Sure it would seem that if Darwin himself didn’t truly believe in evolution, that this would be a huge flaw in evolution. If this were true, then evolution would be based on the words coming out of Darwin’s mouth. On the contrary, evolution is based entirely on data collected, not on words coming out of Darwin’s mouth. Evolution like mathematics has always been here. Some one does not create a mathematical formula, but discover one. Evolution was not created by Darwin but discovered. I do not wish to attack your religion, but when certain people of your community claim to be using science (#7), they will under go the same scrutiny all scientists have to go through. (#8)


Debate 6, Dennis writes:

David: I will address your letter the same as some of the other letters, that being by number. I do not mean to be facetious, but it appears that we are not down to why, I believe this or that. As we have discussed before, everybody believes something, but facts are the issue, not what we believe. If we do not stick to provable facts, then it is just a matter of whom we choose to believe. I believe you would agree with this.

1. The use of reason: The use of reason is exactly what Fred Hoyle used to scientifically test, to find out if creation or evolution is the most reasonable or true. We are not scientists so we cannot always judge those who are, but this man was a qualified scientist. Fred was a Nobel Prize winner in the sciences. Fred, in looking for scientific truth, was not motivated by getting a grant for his work, he was not on some university payroll for promoting evolution. He was not digging in Africa with the people who were financing the work expecting to get a large return on their money, through selling more of their magazines. He was not promoting the god-man idea, etc. Fred had no axe to grind; he was an atheist, only looking for scientific evidence on the basis of scientific facts. His findings I have spoken about in a previous letter. Fred, after conducting his tests, Fred states: “Somebody made all of this; I do not know who, but somebody did.” There is not one doubt that everybody that follows as a point of truth, schools of human opinion such as found in: religious sects, cults, occult, evolution, theist humanism, secular humanism, political Shangri.La’s, higher knowledge, spirit manifestations, intellectualism, etc, is sure that what they are following is true. Of course much of it may be true, but the truth in it deceives the person into a wrong pathway in life. In Matthew 4:1-11, the devil came and tested Jesus after He had fasted in the wilderness for 40 days. It would be the time when He was the weakest. The devil quoted Psalm 91 to Jesus, to persuade Jesus to follow himself. The devil did not misuse Scripture very much, only a little. Had Jesus accepted just a little misuse of the facts, the world would be a totally different place today, if it even existed.

In the last century a man by the name of Francis Schaeffer started an ‘Educational Institute’ in Switzerland, it was called ‘L’Abri Fellowship.’ Francis’s work brought him to write a book called “The Age of Reason.” His work was to help people think and reason rather than follow the masses. I believe his whole contention was that men in our day have walked away from reason. This is because of the many things that have sprung up in the last 150 years, such as; humanism, evolution, making one’s self the god, rejecting the Creator, rejection of the eternal Laws of God, men only being responsible to themselves, Hellenistic persuasions, occult acceptance, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, etc. These things are the things that men regress to when they do not want to retain the knowledge of God. At the bottom of the decline of any society, are men not wanting to retain the knowledge of God. This lack of reason in men to accept known facts brings them to accept errors for facts. For example, Scripture gives every man two evidences of his Creator. First, the creation reveals the handiwork of His creation (Romans 1:19, 20). Second, is the conscience within the man telling him that the Creator is there (Romans 2:14-15). These two evidences are true anyplace in the world. I will not go into the fruit of this ‘lack of reason’ among men as I have done that several times in past letters.

2. More Reason not to Believe the Bible, than Believe: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so it is said. If one decides to believe in Mormonism for instance; there is nothing anybody can do to change that. If one looks at ‘all the evidence’ before one decides to believe in Mormonism no one would be a Mormon on the basis of facts. However, that is not the way human beings are programmed. Brainwashing in a heavy form or in a light form is what motivates many people who wish to control other people. Other people just trust people (especially those with a degree) to their own destruction. If we look at the religion of the Roman Catholics, and the centuries old record of their means of controlling the people, it is a good example. They have told out right lies as well as other devices, to brainwash the people. This method has been acceptable to them, and has been used for centuries. The natural man is not motivated by a desire for truth, that is why this form of programming people works so well. This is true of almost any religious body as well, only to a lesser degree. If the facts of prophecy that I have shown you do not convince you to search for the truth as shown to us in history, Scripture, anthropology, geology, genealogy (Christ’s), one’s own conscience, looking at the creation itself, prophecies, and fulfilled prophecies, nothing that I can say will change that, because the will is involved. You say, “I find more reason to believe otherwise.” If you believe otherwise, you are not doing so because of facts. Just about everyone except Steven Jay Gould and those like him, have stated that evolution is a theory. You are telling me you will believe a theory over established facts. This is neither science nor sound reasoning. In court it would be hearsay evidence, not allowed. But true science is allowed in court, also sound reasoning.

3. Reason to Convert People into Christianity: I believe what you are saying is exactly the truth. Nobody will become born of the Spirit of God by the mind (John 1:12-13). However, the mind is a conduit to a man’s spirit and that is where truth must take root for the Spirit of God to bring new life. Without receiving truth into the spirit, nothing will happen, no matter how true something is. Judas is a good example of your statement. He walked with Jesus for three years; he no doubt raised up the sick, healed the infirm, and did miracles (Matthew 10:1-4). All the time Judas was doing these things, Judas did not believe in Jesus at all (Matthew 26:23-24; John 17:12). Judas was an intellectual disciple, who was following the unbelieving masses; he was not converted on the basis of the evidence of facts about Jesus, for Jesus said that He was the Christ (Luke 18:31-34; 24:25-27, 33-49). The prophecies Jesus fulfilled in His life, and the works that He did proved He was the Christ.

4. What would it Take for me to Believe: Again, I think you are exactly right. Anyone who looks into their own life, and does not see himself or herself as having violated their conscience, the Laws of God and man, is not looking at facts for truth. I have yet to find an inmate who does not think that he is a violator of his conscience, the laws of God and man. Only religious and pseudo-intellectual people have the idea that they are not sinners. They are deceived (1 John 1:8). That is why Jesus told the religious people of His day, who were also the intellectuals of Israel (Pharisees), that the prostitutes would go into the kingdom of God before them (Matthew 21:28-32). The reason Jesus told them this was because they did not think they needed to repent of anything. However, the prostitutes believed the word of Jesus. There is only one perfect person ever born of a woman and the people of this planet could not equate with Him. They did to Him as the devil, the world, and inner-self directed them.

If you wish to see God, Jesus told everyone how to see God. “Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, I AM the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (John 8:12). Also Jesus said: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8). The pure in heart are those that confess that they are evil, and look for the answer that God has provided, His Son. If a person, does that, there is a promise of God to that person, it is this: “But on this one will I look; on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word” (Isaiah 66:2). If you do that you will see God.

If a person will see man from God’s perspective, there is nothing in the future but eternal judgment for man in his violations of the laws of God. God in His mercy sent a substitute to take the judgment for man (Isaiah chapter 53). To say “I am not guilty” only puts one in a place of deception and judgment. Scripture tells us that Satan is the master deceiver and deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9).

5. I have Given Countless Christians a Chance: Your thoughts here are not uncommon to man, as they started in the Garden of Eden. When God called for Adam, in the garden, after Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit, Adam in explaining himself to God in his disobedience, said to God, “the woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I ate” (Genesis 3:8-13). In other words it is God’s and the woman’s fault. God’s fault for giving Adam the woman, and the woman’s fault for giving Adam the fruit. I have had many men in jail over the years that told me whose fault it was that they were in jail. One man told me one night not so long ago that it was those Christians fault that he was in jail. He said, that they had not come over to get him to take him to a Christian meeting, so in his mind it was their fault. He told me he had put them on trial to see if they could keep him from going the wrong way. They failed so he went to jail. I informed him he was responsible to believe God apart from any other human being.

If you think God’s reasoning is flawed and the gospel of the grace of God is flawed, then again you are going to be flowing with the masses in our day. There is a saying that fits anyone who does not believe facts. It is: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

6. Beliefs Based on Reasoning: I think we agree again your beliefs are based on reasonings, not facts. The facts point to something entirely different. We have discussed archeological finds that show evolution is not true as matched with present day geological dating. I have shown to you a book by Michael A. Cremo, ‘the Hidden History of the Human Race. This book shows the finds of archeologists. Modern man found in strata that is supposed to be 300,000,000 years old. A metal pot found in the middle of a bed of coal, 500,000,000 years old according to the geologists of our day. In Heavener, Oklahoma in 1928 in a coal mine, two miles deep, after blasting for coal the men came back the next day to find a solid wall of concrete blocks polished to mirror like condition. The coal in the mine, it was said, is probably Carboniferous which would mean that the wall of concrete blocks was at least 286 million years old. I have not brought to your attention just one of these finds, but many of them. Many more are available to the person who is looking for truth. In these evidences of fact (they are not in your evolution book) any person of an open mind can show evolution is not dealing with all the archeological findings that would totally disprove it. Gradualism does not line up with the archeological discoveries, reported over a long period of time by many people. In fact the evidence shows that evolution is purely a figment of the imagination of man. The professor at Berkeley, who wrote the book ,“Darwin on Trial” has asked for openness with all the facts on the table concerning; genesis of life on the planet. The religionists of evolution will never be willing allow such a thing. Only under tremendous pressure will they give way for true science to prevail.

7. Attack my Community: I was not aware I had a community. However, if truth is the issue, then truth has to stand by itself. Truth is total in itself. What truth cannot be is: what my pastor says, what the church teaches, what my science teacher is teaching, what some individual digging up bones or rocks with a P.H.D. who tells us what happened to these specimens 5 million years, or 5 billion years ago. Of course, much of it may be true or it may not be true. When people are teaching what proclaims to be true, facts must back up what is being taught as truth or admit that it is a theory. Some or much of what people say may be true, but truth is based on provable facts. The devil is not against using 95% truth to mislead the unsuspecting. This is one fact you can count on, the devil is a liar and he has lots of people following his lead.

8. Scientists must go Through Scrutiny: I believe we both agree on this as well. Truth is truth whether it is what God has said, or what some man or men say. Scrutiny is necessary for truth to prevail. If all men would scrutinize what they believe and put away fairy tales there would be a lot more agreement among men. But men, because of their Adamic nature cannot do that because the natural man is in darkness. This darkness keeps men from pursuing truth from a point of light. Jesus said ‘I am the Light of the world.’ However, we learn this about man’s reception to truth in John 1:4: “And the light shines in the darkness (this world), and the darkness did not comprehend it.”


Back To Top