There are obviously two different types of evolution. Macro and micro. Micro evolution is how God helped Adam develop by teaching him how to name all the creatures etc. However, when it comes to macro though, that's when it gets heated. There has been actual scientific research on DNA specifically to see if we humans are linked to a common ancestry; the neanderthral aka the homosapien ape. DNA finds no traces of connections. Therefore, Darwin's Theory was just a theory. In his time, he had no such tech to use to advance his research and to further discover that he was wrong. Evolution itself these days though is widely focused and centralized about Darwinism. Why do people claim we are animals? Because they want us to believe that we are no different then animals. Yet our own behavior suggests otherwise. We are highly intelligent. We can talk and we can hunt, we can definitely choose and have laws, morals etc. Animals can only hunt, run, mate, survive or die. They can't control themselves. However, us humans? We can make choices. Good ones and bad ones. God solely created us separately from animals. It is clear that we were set above the animals and still are. It is man above animal not animal above man. But why do pseudoscientists like Bill Nye claim that creationism is bad for kids? Because he assumes humanity being smarter than he thinks is a bad thing. He is a hypocrite to dehumanize kids to mere animals. He is dehumanizing himself too and a liar for defending the 'gender spectrum" which goes against biology entirely. "Sciencerules" may get triggered by this message so viewer discretion is advised and he will be destroyed, lectured and destroyed time and time and again by the same facts and truths that remains unchanged. God created male and female. He created Adam and Eve. Human DNA has been certified to have traces of lineage, linking towards Adam & Eve, the first man and woman to have lived on earth. God lives, God prevails. Dinosaurs are sadly a fictional tale.

DNA debunks evolution to the fullest:

https://genesisfile.com/dna-dictates-design/?gclid=CjwKCAjwsfuYBhAZEiwA5a6CDAoGvd6AAtsgTus4RHJGdlwRAUTSY11hYfQ5ZJDoyZSt spetXmi1xoCbPIQAvDBwE

Adam and Eve have a long history of being scoffed at by skeptics. Almost from the beginning, opponents of Christianity have dismissed the opening chapters of Genesis – including the story of our first parents – as pure myth, on par with other creation myths from the Ancient Near East.

Over the past century or so, with the advent of Darwinian naturalism, these assertions have grown more insistent, buttressed with bold claims that “science has proven” Adam and Eve could not have existed.

In recent times, even believers in growing numbers have come to question the historicity of the first human couple. They’ll insist Adam and Eve weren’t real people, just metaphorical stand-ins for humanity. At most, they’ll allow that perhaps God may have plucked a pair of hominids from the evolutionary stream, named them Adam and Eve, and infused them with souls and with his image.

These efforts can stem from an earnest desire to resolve an alleged conflict between science and Scripture. Or else, they may be an attempt to avoid looking ignorant in the eyes of secular culture. Whatever their motive, they wind up undermining the actual pursuit of science, to say nothing of the Gospel narrative of Scripture.

The genre of Genesis

When approaching a text, especially one as significant as the creation account, it’s vital to get the genre right. Genesis is not a modern textbook of history or science. It was written in elevated, stylized language, the first chapter in particular built around an artful pattern of repetition. However, that first chapter isn’t Hebrew poetry per se, any more than the rest of the book is. There’s none of the two-line parallelism that’s a defining feature of Hebrew verse found in Psalms and elsewhere in Scripture. Rather the text is in the form of historical narrative, composed to recount actual occurrences, even though its style is in keeping with the literary conventions of its time.

As apologist Alisa Childers points out, “Although the story is told in a poetic way, the Genesis account mainly exhibits the characteristics of narrative prose, which describes a series of events.”

To be sure, the proper name “Adam” is also a general term for humankind, as “Eve” is for “life” and “Eden” is for “pleasure” or “delight.” Nevertheless, the text presents Adam and Eve as actual people in a specific place and time. And they do actual people things like marrying, having children, making choices, tending a garden, giving names to animals, and conversing with each other and with God.

Moreover, Adam’s genealogical record lists his exact age when his son Seth was born, the fact that he had other sons and daughters, and the exact age when he died. In fact, the entire book of Genesis is built around a series of genealogies that connect Adam to Noah, and then to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and ultimately to Moses and the people of Israel. Moses, who wrote the book, treated Adam and Eve as real historical figures, no less than anyone else in that family tree.

Blurring the Imago Dei

The first chapter of Genesis states that God created humanity, male and female, in his own image. The second chapter provides more detail, describing how God formed Adam directly from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. God then created Eve, also directly, from one of Adam’s ribs.

It’s difficult to square an honest reading of this narrative with the idea that Adam and Eve were metaphorical, or else a pair of hominids elevated to human status. The text says that when God breathed life into Adam, the man became a nephesh chaya, Hebrew for living creature. That same expression is used throughout the account to describe other living creatures, like birds and animals. So, if Adam were a divinely mutated hominid, he would have already been a nephesh chaya before God ever breathed life into him.

Beyond that, the story of Adam and Eve is essential to a proper understanding of the nature of humanity. As God’s unique image bearers, created by him for that express purpose, human beings possess a dignity and value distinct from the rest of creation. And because all people are descended from that first couple, every individual, male and female, has an equal share of that value and dignity.

If Adam and Eve were pre-existing hominids transformed by God, then humanity’s unique reflection of the Imago Dei is blurred at best and may not even be present to the same degree – or at all – in every individual. And if our first parents never existed, then any objective basis for inherent – and inherited – human worth doesn’t exist either.

Scripture after Genesis

Adam and Eve are mentioned only sporadically in the rest of Scripture after Genesis. But when they are, they’re always presented as actual historical figures. The first book of Chronicles opens with a genealogy of Israel, starting with Adam. In similar fashion, the Gospel of Luke traces the ancestry of Jesus all the way back to Adam. In the book of Acts, Paul tells the skeptical Athenians that God made all human nations from one original man. And when writing to Timothy, the Apostle again refers to Adam and Eve as historical people, as does Jude in his short letter when he quotes Enoch, a seventh generation descendent of Adam.

Jesus himself, while teaching about marriage and divorce in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, alludes to Adam and Eve as real people. Later, as recorded in Matthew and Luke, the Lord also speaks about the literal murder of Abel, Adam and Eve’s second son. And along the same lines, the writer to the Hebrews describes Abel’s sacrifice as an actual event, and places Adam’s murdered son at the head of his list of heroes of the faith.

It would be hard to deny that the authors of Scripture – and the Lord himself – read the Genesis account as historical narrative and viewed Adam and Eve as historical people. But that hasn’t stopped critics from trying. They’ll argue that these authors and their original readers knew they were talking about ancient myths to convey spiritual truth. Or else they’ll claim that the apostles and evangelists – and even Jesus – were simply wrong.

Such claims, however, don’t bear up under serious scrutiny. Reading these texts honestly and in context makes it clear that the authors intended their audience to know they were talking about real people and real events. In each case, the spiritual truth they were trying to convey falls apart unless rooted in historical fact. It’s hard to imagine a rigorous thinker like Paul or a careful historian like Luke getting their facts wrong and using myths to make their case. It’s harder still – in fact impossible – to think of Jesus, the divine author of all truth and reality, making the same mistake.

Dire Gospel implications

From a Gospel perspective, the most significant discussion about Adam and Eve outside of Genesis is found in Paul’s letters to the Roman and Corinthian churches.

In the fifth chapter of Romans, Paul presents Adam and Jesus as the two representative heads of humanity. He spells out in detail how sin and death entered the world through Adam and spread by inheritance to the entire human race. But through Jesus, who took on human nature, Adam’s fallen descendants can receive grace, righteousness and eternal life.

The Apostle reiterates and distills this core Gospel truth to the church at Corinth via a series of vivid contrasts: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. . . . Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . . Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45, 49).

There can be no doubt that Paul understood Adam to be just as real as Jesus. But if in fact Adam never existed or was just a hominid plucked from the evolutionary tree, then Paul’s entire case for the Gospel makes no sense. There’s no fall of humanity, no original sin, and no need or possibility of redemption.

Tim Keller addresses the inconsistent idea that Paul’s argument holds up even if he got his facts wrong: “[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . . . If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument – that both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’ – falls apart. You can’t say that ‘Paul was a man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.”

Old Testament scholar Richard Belcher adds: “If all human beings are not descended from Adam, there is no hope of salvation for them. Christ does not and cannot redeem what he has not assumed. What he has assumed is the human nature of those who bear the image of Adam by natural descent. If there is no redemptive history that is credible, then redemptive history is lost in any meaningful sense. Thus the historicity of Adam has implications for the Gospel.”

And theologian Richard Gaffin is quite blunt in summing up these dire Gospel implications: “The truth of the Gospel stands or falls with the historicity of Adam as the first human being from whom all other human beings descend. What Scripture affirms about creation, especially the origin of humanity, is central to its teaching about salvation.”

The frontiers of science

Naturally none of this has deterred skeptics (and sadly many believers) from assuming that “settled science” has ruled out the possibility of Adam and Eve ever existing, never mind being the progenitors of the entire human race. But science – which at its heart is about discovery and not consensus – has done nothing of the sort. In reality, these bald assertions aren’t based on objective investigation, but on materialist assumptions that dismiss out of hand any non-natural explanations for the origin of life.

Science, of course, can neither prove nor disprove whether Adam and Eve existed, nor does it need to. But studies of genetics, linguistics and the spread of pathogens at least suggest the likelihood that humanity arose relatively recently, in one location, and from a small population, perhaps even from a single pair.

From the field of population genetics, cutting-edge research published in the journal BIO-Complexity has lent strong support for the possibility that humans descend from a single couple, despite frequent claims to the contrary. The authors of the paper, biologist Ann Gauger and mathematician Ola Hössjer, used sophisticated computer modelling to trace the diverse branches of the human genetic tree back to a statistically probable point of origin. Their findings indicate that humanity could easily have originated from a single ancestral couple, as recently as the time when Neanderthals are commonly believed to have appeared on the scene.

Once again, this doesn’t prove the Genesis account, and that was never Gauger and Hössjer’s intention. What they set out to do – and accomplished brilliantly – was to show that contrary to materialist orthodoxy, Adam and Eve are indeed a scientifically feasible explanation for the origin of humanity. Both researchers were forthright about why such a study as theirs had never been pursued before.

Hössjer explained: “Well, the reason is philosophical rather than based on empirical facts. Modern science is very secular. Typically, only those hypotheses are allowed to be tested that can be framed in purely natural terms (i.e. methodological naturalism). A model with a first couple implicitly requires an Intelligent Designer or a Creator in order to answer how this first couple was generated in the first place. Modern science will therefore rule out a first couple model from the start (even if one leaves it to the reader to answer how the first couple originated), before data has been analyzed.”

Gauger was even more to the point: “First of all, who gave scientists the right to interpret Scripture? Why should they care if we believe that we came from a literal first couple? They stuck their noses in where they didn’t belong. Second, they actually didn’t test the thing they were claiming.”

Concluding thoughts

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of Adam and Eve’s non-existence have been greatly exaggerated. As one might expect, nature and Scripture are never at odds with each other. God is the author of both, so there can be no hidden secret, lurking in the natural world, waiting to come to light and prove God’s Word wrong. Of course, it’s vital to interpret both correctly, a principle worth remembering by scientists and theologians alike.

But the historicity of Adam and Eve reaches far beyond drawing proper lines between science and metaphysics. The question impacts the truth of the entire Gospel narrative of Scripture. The creation, fall, redemption and restoration of humanity, the intrinsic value of human life and salvation through Christ, the second Adam, all hinge on the literal existence of the first Adam and his wife Eve, created directly by God in his own image.

Adam and Eve may have borne the shame of plunging humanity into sin and death. However, believers need not be ashamed of the existence of our first parents in the face of skeptical opinion. Quite the contrary, a literal Adam and Eve give us a sense of grounding, humility and assurance for our faith. Their story forms the opening chapter of God’s real, historical narrative through which he’s redeeming his people as well as his entire creation.

Source:

https://www.focusonthefamily.ca/content/ adam-and-eve-really-existed-and-why-that-matters?utm term=&utmcampaign=Focus+on+the+Family+-+Dynamic+Search+Ads+-+Canada&utm source=adwords&utmmedium=ppc&hsaver=3&hsaacc=4036375728&hsamt=&hsaad=617153507457&hsatgt=dsa-61724785219&hsanet=adwords&hsagrp=78929297489&hsakw=&hsacam=2065863790&hsasrc=g&gclid=CjwKCAjwsfuYBhAZEiwA5a6CDK3PwRpimSGCE6h VYdwuhm9XgMcHHwpFVPTqRRMi8yMZQFPJhecYxoCbWUQAvD BwE

The maker of this post may use this information to further support his arguments as well.

The theory of Darwin's evolution is certainly uncertain. It was never proved. Even Ken Ham has explained that there is no such thing as being evolved from a mere ape to a human. Otherwise, wouldn't apes be humans today? And wouldn't newborn babies be more hairy? Except human babies are not apes eh? Exactly and apes are still not humans too. Therefore, Darwin was wrong about that part. The part about survival of the fittest was taken from the observation of animalistic behavior within the animal kingdom. Darwin believed that we are similar in that light and claimed that we have animal origins. But it's revealed, there is just no evidence to support that. Rather, it's been fabricated and called "fact". Although animals of the mammal sector can sometimes mimic human behavior, it doesn't mean they are about to become human. It is humorous to see talking animals these days on tv. But it doesn't make them real humans. Now, just because humans can mimic animals, does this mean we are animals? No. Same process. It's just part of humans and animals forming a bond...sometimes. We do not have sex with animals because it is wrong and harmful. This is why bestiality is outlawed and will continue to be outlawed. The goal of evolutionists these days is to discourage believers in creationism. They believe that humans are suppressing their hidden "natural animalistic behavior". What they are actually trying to do is cause anarchy of sexual and violent behavior without self ownership of one's own individuality. Animals do not talk and instead growl, yap or sit there looking at you with cute eyes for a reason. While humans have been created by God to be more intelligent in communication, self control and being civilized. Are naturalists going for civilized behavior? No. They want everyone to be naked and that is what I call inappropriate NSFW content. If you cannot handle these truths and facts I have just written down, you are marked as a truthphobe; irrationally in fear of the truth and facts presented.

Gender theory, a most popular issue we have today, fabricated by subjective toxicvists(Toxic activists) and hypocrites claim that it is "factual" that we can change our gender. Biology says otherwise. Our chromosomes cannot be changed nor altered. To mess with our own biological structure can mess up alot of things. We may end up looking distorted and ugly. Gender theory can never be proved either, just as Darwin's evolution has already been debunked many many times. Gender and sex are the same. The reasoning behind the different use? Well, kids used to laugh when they heard the word "sex". Gender is meant to reflect upon your biological sex features. This either means manhood or womanhood. Penis or vagina + boobs. Men do not have boobs and if you argue "man boobs", that's another subjective opinion. There is no gender spectrum. Why? It is simple. You are either male or female. There is no in between. Do birth defects determine a new gender? No. Toxic subjectivists will claim "yes". For a fact? No. Intersex isn't a new gender. It is in fact, a birth defect due to chromosomal disorder. People who are born with a male and female genitalia mixed together is still male or female otherwise. You can tell by the voice of the individual. Eunuchs are males without a penis. Hermaphrodites are females with both and no, it's not normal and no, it does not make them special enough to promote rights for them to be of a "different' gender. No, you do not get to promote men to be women because men are men, women are women. Should we have gender neutral bathrooms? No. It will make boys and girls uncomfortable. People need privacy. Theories are often uncertain because there is little to no evidence to support them.

People do still discuss this today.

What are the flaws? Find out here.

https://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-theory-evolution.html

6 Reasons why evolution isn't real. It isn't supported by DNA analysis done by professionals and ofc several sciences. Genetics, Biochemistry, Paleontology, Taxonomy, Chemistry. Detailed explanations are here:

Everybody makes mistakes. Even Darwin. Here below is a link of the things wrong with Darwin's evolution which screwed him over.

Just for fun. The arguments against evolution. First, the simulation hypothesis. If we live in a computer simulation then everything we know about the world is false.

All the evidence for evolution would be manufactured by the creator of the simulation.

The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13

Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

References

Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part I," (Impact No. 330, December 2000), pp. i-iv.

Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part II," (Impact No. 331, January 2001), pp. i-iv.

Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named The National Center for Science Education.

Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.

Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.

Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.

Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.

Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.

Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.

Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.

Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.

Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.

Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and 'Row, 1964), p. 125.

Ibid., p. 222.

Ibid.

* Dr. Morris (1918-2006) was Founder of the Institute for Creation Research.