The Scopes Monkey Trial - Part 2

This is Part 2 of a three part series.  The first two are from my article on the Scopes Trial from Origins Research associated with Access Research Network:

https://arn.org/

Part 3 will contain my current thoughts on the topic.  ARN was one of the pioneer proponents of Intelligent Design #ID

 

“The Scopes Trial and After,” Origins Research (later Origins & Design), Vol. 2, No. 2, Sep-Oct 1979, pp. 5,6.

 

-- Scopes Trial in Retrospect --

Many comments and observations about the Scopes trial have been made since 1925.  Clyde Roddy, an eyewitness, said "It was strictly a publicity stunt!"[13]  The businessmen wanted the publicity.  As a former student of Scopes, Giles Ryan, said "It was all made up that he would teach that particular lesson, that particular day.  The businessmen pushed John into it."[14]  Scopes did not teach evolution. The students that testified that he did were coached by the defense lawyers.  Some wondered who was on trial: Scopes or Bryan?  

Alistair Cooke states that Bryan's "rude Old Testament idea of the dignity of man was made to look foolish by the awesome figure of Charles Darwin!"[15]  Fredrick Lewis Allen contends that "The sort of religious faith which he represented could not take the witness stand and face reason as a Prosecutor."[16]  After July of 1925, a large segment of people associated fundamentalism with bigotry and ignorance. Negative opinions of Bryan helped create the play Inherit the Wind which presents Bryan, using a different name, as an ignorant narrow-minded hypocrite. It became a movie in 1960 and was performed on television in 1965.  A more realistic appraisal of Bryan is given by John W. Klotz: he "did a poor job in the role which he accepted."[17]  During the climax of the trial Darrow referred to George M. Price as a pretender.  Price wrote The New Geology, published in 1923, in which he documents the case against evolutionary geology and for Flood geology.  Although Price was self-educated in geology, Whitcomb and Morris state clearly that "Price was really ignored because of his strong case against uniformitarianism, a case more easily ignored than refuted.[18]  The Scopes trial has been described as being representative of the conflict between academic freedom and bigotry, materialism and theism, pure science and mythology, in addition to evolution and fundamentalism.  Paul and Maureen Wesseler conclude that the Scopes trial "was the turning point in popular thinking regarding the creation vs. evolution issue."[19]  

 

-- Evolution Theory Gains Popularity --  

A variety of developments in the creation-evolution controversy have occurred since the "Monkey trial."  Bryan's death generated growth of the anti-evolution movement, but only temporarily.  Bryan was a well known national figure and nobody could replace his leadership. By 1929 the anti-evolution crusade had essentially come to a halt.  One seeming result of the movement was the sharp de-emphasis of evolution in biology texts.  Publishers didn't wish to lose the Southern market, predominantly fundamentalist, where the majority of the states using state-wide textbook adoption were located.  An example showing the decrease of material on evolution is noticed in Civic Biology by George Hunter, the text from which Scopes taught.  The 1914 edition contained an evolutionary “tree” along with a paragraph entitled "The Doctrine of Evolution.”  These features were removed in the 1926 edition. 

Another case in point is Truman Moon's Biology for Beginners.  In the 1921 edition the frontispiece consisted of a picture of Charles Darwin, but this was replaced in 1926 by a diagram of the digestive system; also, the word “evolution” was replaced by "development."   Dynamic Biology by Baker and Mills, the most popular text in the 1930s, included a chapter covering evolution; nevertheless, the noun "evolution" does not

appear in the index.  The heading of the chapter was "Changing Forms of Living Things" and it ended with a religious couplet. These examples illustrate the fact that the most widely used biology texts of the ’20s and ’30s presented evolution in a limited way.  Although evolution was given less importance in texts after the Scopes trial, Henry M. Morris describes the period of 1925-40 as the “dark ages’’ of creationism.”[20]  Most scientists and colleges supported evolution.  The public was influenced by movies, museums, books, and magazines to accept evolution.

Although evolution increased in popularity, it was mentioned in less than half of the high school biology courses in 1942.  Four years later (1946) That You Might Believe by Henry M. Morris was published. It became the first book since the Scopes trial to be authored by a science professor. advocating the creation model at a secular college.  Following the trial, evolution did not grow in importance in the majority of biology texts until after 1960. Today the best-selling texts (BSCS) emphasize evolution.  Only three major textbook publishers offer creation as an alternative to evolution: Macmillan, McGraw-Hill, and Allyn Bacon.  In their texts both views are presented, but evolution is favored.  One of these, Stanley Weinberg’s Biology - An Inquiry Into the Nature of Life, published by Allyn Bacon, shows a two column chart comparing creation and evolution.

 

-- Controversy Renewed on Scientific Grounds --

In contrast the ACLU fights against teaching creation along with evolution. The U.S. Supreme Court declared anti-evolution laws to be unconstitutional for public schools in 1968.  In 1973 Tennessee’s legislature passed a law requiring equal presentation of creation and evolution; however, it was repealed in 1975. Within the government there is a closed attitude toward creation.  

For instance, Dr. Anthony Ostric, an anthropologist at Notre Dame University, was denied a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities for the reason that his research would challenge man’s supposed evolution.  More research favoring creation has been done in recent years than ever before.  Many creationist scientists were once evolutionists, but changed their view because of the evidence.  This has not always been true.  As John Whitcomb states, “Back in the time of the Scopes trial, the people who argued for a literal interpretation of the Bible didn’t have scientific backgrounds.  They couldn’t argue  successfully."[21]  Today there are over 600 creationists with a master’s or doctoral degree in a natural science who are voting members of the Creation Research Society, established in 1963, which holds to the belief that the Genesis account of creation and the Flood is factual.  The Institute for Creation Research, founded in 1970, has been of great significance to the current creationist   movement in the more than one hundred debates involving evolutionists and ICR staff at various universities since the early 1970's.

 

-- How Should Origins be Taught? --

The concluding question then, is “How should origins be taught in public schools?’’  Currently creation is not presented equally with evolution in the vast majority of schools.  

Bolton Davidheiser’s judgment is that, "the attitude of the evolutionists is a shameless travesty on academic freedom."[22]  Even Clarence Darrow confirmed that the teaching of only one model of origins in public schools is "bigotry."  The sole teaching of evolution is harmful in view of the doubts  caused among creationist students.  Surveys reveal that belief in the literal  Genesis creation record declines during the ages from twelve to eighteen.[23]

 

The exclusive instruction of evolution is often defended with the argument that it is the only "scientific" explanation of beginnings.  Evolution is no more scientific than creation.  According to L. Harrison Matthews, writing in the Foreword to Darwin's Origin of Species (1971 edition), "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith?  Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true; but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."[24]  In the same manner evolutionists Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch admit that, "Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations.  It is thus ‘outside of empirical science,’ but not necessarily false."[25]  

In a similar thought Wendell Bird states in the Yale Law Journal that concerning evolution and creation, "...the conflict is not between science and religion, but between two theoretical models that build upon  scientific criticism and that harmonize with some religions and have overtones contrary to others."[26]

 

-- The Solution --

The conflict as it relates to origins teaching in public schools has three solutions: exemption, neutralization, and elimination.[27]  Exempting creationist students  from class whenever evolution is taught would cause more problems than it solves, since this would affect a large number of students.  A better way is neutralization, the teaching of both creation and evolution impartially.  

If creation is presented in a scientific context rather than a religious one, it does not violate church and state separation.  The two model (creation and evolution) approach has successfully been used in the large school districts of Columbus, Ohio; Dallas, Texas; and Kanawa County, West Virginia.  Students presented with two models of origins instead of just one are more motivated, learn better, and become more critical, as one recent study determined.[28]  Another factor which supports the teaching of two models is that random surveys taken in various parts of the country indicate that more than 80% of the people favor presenting creation at least on an equal level with evolution.[29]  A third solution to the problem of teaching origins is elimination.  Eliminating both creation and  evolution in schools, however, is clearly academic suicide.  As Wendell Bird concludes, “Comparison of these alternative remedies in light of their protection of religious liberty and impact upon state educational interests suggests that the preferred remedy in secondary schools is neutralizing instruction in the origin of the world and life..."[30]

 

REFERENCES

13) James C. Hefley, "Fifty Years After Scopes," Christianity Today July 18, 1975, p.34.

14) Hefley, p.34.

15) Alistair Cooke, Alistair Cooke’s America (Alfred Knopf, New York: 1974),  p.271.

16) Fredrick L. Allen, Only Yesterday (Harper and Row, New York: 1964), p. 171.

17) John W. Klotz, "The Philosophy of Science in Relation to Concepts of Creation vs. the Evolution Theory" in Why Not Creation?, Walter E. Lammerts ed. (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1973), p.13.

18) John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia: 1961), p.184.

19) Bolton Davidheiser, “The Scopes Trial,” in A Symposium on Creation III, Donald Patten ed. (Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1971), p.5.

20) Henry M. Morris, Banquet address, Sixth National Creation-Science Conference (Wichita, Kansas: Aug. 22, 1978).

21) David Harris, "Genesis Tells It Like It Was," The Wichita Eagle, Aug. 21, 1978, p.1C.

22) Bolton Davidheiser, ‘‘A Brief History of Evolutionary Thought” in A Challenge To Education, Walter Lang ed. (Bible-Science Assoc., Caldwell, Idaho: 1972), p.48.

23) Wendell Bird, "Freedom of Religion and Science

Instruction in Public Schools," The Yale Law Journal, Jan. 1978, p.537.

24) Quoted by Henry M. Morris, The Scientific Case For Creation (Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego: 1977), p.7.

25) Quoted by Henry M. Morris ed., Scientific Creationism (Creation-Life  Publishers, San Diego: 1974), p.6.

26) Bird, p.517.

27) For further discussion see Bird.

28) Richard Bliss, "A Comparison of Students Studying the Origin of Life From a Two-Model Approach vs. Those Studying From a Single-Model Approach" (ICR

Impact Series no. 60) Acts and Facts June 1978, p.iv.

29) Henry M. Morris, ‘‘Creation and Public Opinion,” Acts and Facts Dec. 1976, pp.3,4.

30) Bird, p.570.

 

#Scopes_Monkey_Trial #Wendell_Bird #Henry_Morris #Destination1925 #ScopesTrial #Origins_Research #Davidheiser #Origins #Genesis #Mk10_6 #Access_Research_Network #Goleta #Santa_Barbara #UCSB #arn #Intelligent_Design #ID #Phillip_Johnson #Darwin_on_Trial #evo #Crevo #Destiny ↑ #Origins&Design #ScopeZ  #controversy #YoungEarth #Young_Earth_Science #YES #trial #Dayton  #Tennessee #Year1925 #WilliamJenningsBryan #WJB #Clarence_Darrow #History #His_Story ╬

The Scopes Monkey Trial - Part 1

-- The Scopes Monkey Trial #Destination1925 --

This is Part 1 of a three part series.  The first two are from my article on the Scopes Trial from Origins Research associated with Access Research Network:

https://arn.org/

Part 3 will contain my current thoughts on the topic.  ARN was one of the pioneer proponents of Intelligent Design #ID

 

“The Scopes Trial and After,” Origins Research (later Origins & Design), Vol. 2, No. 2, Sep-Oct 1979, pp. 5,6.

 

The well publicized Scopes trial was a highly significant event in the creation-evolution controversy. This trial occurred in Dayton, Tennessee in the overheated summer of 1925. The clash between prosecutor William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow is remembered, but the fact that the purpose of the trial was to determine whether or not Scopes taught evolution is often forgotten. 

William Jennings Bryan, a Presbyterian, was the leading spokesman for fundamentalism. After 1920 he turned from politics to fight evolution. Bryan felt that the teaching of evolution in public schools would make students lose faith in God. One survey taken in Bryan's time indicated that 15% of the students were unbelievers before college, but the percentage rose to 40% after graduation.[1]  Bryan attributed this to Darwin's theory, which was widely taught in colleges and universities.  He contended that instruction in evolution should not take place in public schools for the reason that most of the public were not evolutionists.  According to Bryan, "The hand that writes the paycheck rules the school."[2]  During 1922, In His Image was published containing Bryan's criticism of evolution. He possessed several honorary degrees, but he wasn't knowledgeable in science. Reason was inferior to faith by Bryan's standards. He put his faith into action when he offered $100 to anyone who would admit he was descended from apes and a university professor took advantage of the challenge.  Bryan was a 65 year old man with poor health at the time of the Scopes trial.  Another weakness of Bryan in opposing Darrow was that he had not tried a case in 25 years.  Clarence Darrow, a famous criminal lawyer, was chief counsel for the defense.  

In contrast to Bryan, Darrow was an agnostic and didn't believe the Bible, although he had read it.  He donated his services to Scopes because he wanted to debate Bryan.

 

-- The Butler Act --

The Tennessee law that Scopes was accused of breaking was the Butler Act. Nearly half of the states had such an anti-evolution bill introduced to their legislatures.  Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Mississippi passed these bills into law. John Washington Butler was the legislator who introduced the bill to prohibit the teaching of evolution in schools. Butler's interest in this issue started when he heard of a woman in his neighborhood and went to a university and as a result she became an evolutionist.  

In March of 1925 the Butler Act was signed into law. The bill passed partly due to the legislators' fear of being known as Bible haters. The act forbade the teaching of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals" in public school.[3]  Governor Austin Peay predicted that "Probably the bill will never be applied" as he signed the Butler Act.[4]

 

-- ACLU Test Case --

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) considered the Butler Act to be a prohibition of scientific teaching in schools; therefore, it was willing to finance the defense in a test case.  In May of 1925 inside Frank Robinson's drugstore, George Rappleyea, a Dayton businessman, suggested to Walter White, Superintendent of Rhea county schools, where Dayton was the county seat, that there should be a test case for the Butler Act.  They decided that the defendant ought to be John Thomas Scopes and had him brought to the drugstore for questioning.  

Scopes declared that he taught biology as a substitute teacher, that the text explained evolution, and that evolution needs to be presented in a biology class.  They told Scopes about the anti-evolution law in addition to the part they wanted him to play in the test case.  Scopes freely volunteered to become involved.  In the course of July 10-21, 1925 at the Rhea county courthouse in Dayton the Scopes trial proceeded.  The trial attracted preachers, revivalists, religious orators, propagandists, salesmen and extravagant publicity.

Dayton store owner J.R. Darwin had unique signs on the front of his building: "DARWIN IS RIGHT inside" and "GIVE US A FAIR TRIAL."[5]  Bryan invited Alfred W. McCann, author of God or Gorilla?, to come testify, but he refused because he condemned the Butler Act's restrictive nature.  Bryan also attempted to contact George M. Price, creationist and Flood geologist, but he was out of reach in England.

 

-- The Trial Begins --

On Monday the 13th, Darrow showed how the law contradicted religious liberty by favoring Genesis.  The next day, Attorney General A.T. Stewart of the prosecution noted that the reason for the trial was not to debate religion and science, but rather to determine if a teacher taught a theory prohibited by law.  

On Wednesday, the defense claimed that Scopes was accused of two acts; teaching an idea that denied the Genesis account of man's origin and teaching that man is descended from lower animals.  The defense pointed to the statistic that millions believe both the Bible and evolution.  Some of Scope's students then testified that he taught evolution.  The following day a debate took place to decide if scientists and theologians could testify.  During Friday's session Judge John Raulston ruled that there was only one crime described in the Butler Act, not two.  The two parts of the act simply explained each other; therefore, experts were not needed to interpret the law.  

On the evening of Sunday the 19th Kirtley Mather, a geologist and defense witness, acted out the role of Bryan as Darrow asked questions trying to point out faults in the Bible.  On Monday the judge allowed defense attorney Arthur Hays to read written statements of experts.  In one statement Nebraska Man was presented as a "missing link."  Bryan protested the evidence since it was based on a single tooth.  A later discovery revealed that it was an extinct pig's tooth.  According to the testimony of Kirtley Mather, "There are in fact no missing links in the record which connects man with other members of the Order Primates."[6]  Although [some would claim] that was an absurd statement, he couldn't be accused of perjury because he was giving his opinion.

 

-- Darrow Questions Bryan --

At this point, weather and safety conditions required the trial to move outside. After more statements were read, the defense called Bryan to witness as a student of the Bible.  It could be argued that a lawyer on one side calling an opposing lawyer to witness was not legal; nevertheless, the judge permitted it considering that Bryan had no objections.  At the climax of the trial there were about two thousand spectators.  

Darrow asked Bryan questions about Jonah and the whale, Joshua's long day, the Flood, early civilizations, comparative religion, the Tower of Babel, philology, the earth's age, Adam's rib, Cain's wife, the days of creation, and the tempting serpent.  Bryan confessed his lack of knowledge on most of the questions.  He said the wrong thing by asserting, "I don't think about things I don't think about."  Darrow asked, "Do you think about things you do think about?" Bryan replied, "Well, sometimes."[7]  Attorney General Stewart objected several times, but the judge let the interrogation continue.  When Bryan said he thought highly of geologist George M. Price, Darrow described Price as a pretender.  After admitting his ignorance for yet another time, Bryan rose to his feet to proclaim, "The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible."  In reply Darrow said, "I am examining you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes."[8]  They shook their fists at each other. A little more confusion could have caused a riot; consequently, court was adjourned.  A crowd followed Darrow as he left the scene, but Bryan was mostly ignored.  According to a defense statement, Darrow wanted to prove that Genesis couldn't be taken literally by a reasonable man and that Bryan was ignorant in matters of science as well as theology.  Bryan had hoped in vain for a chance to question Darrow.  On Tuesday the jury, which had been barred from the expert testimony, was brought into the courtroom and found Scopes guilty.  Judge Raulston imposed a $100 fine.  Afterwards the case was dismissed in a higher court since the judge imposed the fine instead of the jury.

 

-- Media Response --

The press presented a dim view of Bryan.  As Robert Linder states, "Research indicates that the majority of those who reported the Scopes trial went out of their way to cast Bryan in the role of an ignorant fanatic and bigot."[9]  

In the editorials of the New York Times Bryan was called "prodigiously ignorant" and a man with "a poorly furnished brain-room."[10]  H.L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun said "Nobody gives a damn about that yap schoolteacher.  The thing to do is make a fool out of Bryan."[11]  Bryan was misquoted in many reports.  The New York Times claimed that Bryan said he would put the Bible in the Constitution and urge passage of an anti-evolution amendment if he lost in Dayton.  What he actually said was that he would carry the fight to the people if he lost.  A correction appeared days later.  Bryan died on July 26, 1925 partly because of the strain during the trial.  As Mencken proclaimed, "we killed the son of a bitch."[12]

 

REFERENCES

1) L. Sprague de Camp, The Great Monkey Trial (Doubleday, Garden City, New York: 1968), p.41.

2) Richard Hofstader, Anti-Intellectualism in American

Life (Alfred Knopf, New York: 1974), p.129.

3) Fredrick L. Allen, Only Yesterday (Harper and Row, New York: 1964), p. 167. 4) John A. Garraty, The American Nation (Harper and Row, New York: 1966), p. 687.

5) Fredrick L. Allen, I Remember Distinctly (Harper and Brothers, New York: 1947), p.93.

6) Quoted by Bolton Davidheiser, “The Scopes Trial,” in A Symposium on Creation III, Donald Patten ed. (Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1971), p.108.

7) deCamp, p.390.

8) deCamp, p.409.

9) Robert D. Linder, “Fifty Years After Scopes: Lessons to Learn, A Heritage to Reclaim,” Christianity Today, July 18, 1975, p.8.

10) Linder.

11) Jonathan Daniels, The Time Between the Wars (Doubleday, Garden City, New York: 1966), p.141.

12) Daniels, p.142.

 

my site: https://totalyouth.us

 

#Scopes_Monkey_Trial #Destination1925 #ScopesTrial #Origins_Research #Origins #Genesis #Mk10_6 #Access_Research_Network #Goleta #Santa_Barbara #UCSB #arn #Intelligent_Design #ID #Phillip_Johnson #Darwin_on_Trial #evo #Crevo #Destiny ↑ #Origins&Design #ScopeZ  #controversy #YoungEarth #Young_Earth_Science #YES #trial #Dayton  #Tennessee #Year1925 #WilliamJenningsBryan #WJB #Clarence_Darrow #History #His_Story ╬

Intelligent Design (ID) implies Young Earth Science (YES)

Harvard grad Phillip E. Johnson was the law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren and taught law for 30 years at UC Berkeley.  Johnson is most known for being the father of Intelligent Design (ID).  Access Research Network (ARN) was Phillip Johnson’s recommended site: [1]

The new Executive Director for ARN is Art Battson (as of 1-1-15).  Dennis Wagner was the prior leader.  Amazingly, Battson’s views support the stability of Essential Types of Life (ETL’s).

A snazzy new book YES – Young Earth Science has a whole chapter on the stasis of ETL’s.  Essentialism has a long history - Aristotle easily observed that wolves reproduce wolves and rabbits make more rabbits.  Given eon’s a sheep will never turn into a shepherd

Even is Darwin’s day all scientists were not convinced.  Sir Charles Wyville Thomson (FRS, d. 1882), chief scientist on the Challenger expedition which revolutionized oceanography, rejected the “theory which refers the evolution of species to extreme variation guided only by natural selection.” [2]

YES – Young Earth Science shows that stasis of ETL’s, Catastrophism and a Young Earth are connected.  Thus, Intelligent Design implies Young Earth Science (YES).  There are numerous data which favors YES.  Phillip Johnson is clearly YES friendly.

Notes:

1)  Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip Johnson (IVP, Downers Grove, IL, 1997), p. 11.

2)  quoted in “Counting Sheep Since Jacob’s Day” by Brian Thomas, Acts & Facts, Feb. 2014, p. 15.

Calculus is Easy (Calc is EZ)

Calculus is Easy is a new book by Jay Hall M.S. (Math, 53 hrs. Science).  If you are a homeschooler, get this book‼  Hall makes math fun with a lively explanation, great applications and neat ways to help memorize formulas.  This Math book is different in that it is not based on naturalistic and materialistic PreSuppositions. 

This text even gives Access Research Network a plug.  Phillip Johnson would be proud.  There is an interesting reference to Solids of Evolution:

Could there possibly be any connection between Math and the films Life of Pi and Courageous?  Read this book and find out for yourself.

A fascinating video on the book is on YouTube.  Discover the meaning of MathDoku and get this book today!  You too, can learn more about arc length in polar coordinates:

You may contact Jay Hall at  CalculusIsEasy@yahoo.com

Who Is The Intelligent Designer?

This groundbreaking new book answers the question that Ben Stein has brought to this planet’s attention with his film "Expelled." After reading WHO IS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER? you will be able to answer the question, “Is there more to creation in the extra-cosmic message from the Intelligent Designer beyond Genesis chapter one?” The emphasis on creation is displayed throughout the Creator’s authentic revelation. The Intelligent Designer made the world and owns everything. Because of creation we are responsible to God. We have been made in the image of God and have been called to care for the earth. We did not make the world and so we are not completely self-reliant. Read about the origin of the world from Moses, through the Psalms and in the Prophets. Creation is a foundational teaching that shows us who God is and both who and why we are (Col. 1:15-17). The Intelligent Designer did not just make the world and then ignore it. God sustains the world he made and gives food, air and water to his creatures. Who is the Intelligent Designer? provides genuine information confirming God’s providential care of the universe. The value of this must-read creation is its comprehensive scriptural content and thoughtful discourse.
Are you thankful for the Intelligent Designer’s blessings of Creation and Providential Care? God not only made the galaxies, he also takes note when a sparrow falls. Our knowledge of creation comes from an extra-cosmic data source (the Bible). Is this ancient book reliable? Who is the Intelligent Designer? gives compelling reasons for faith and that the worldview of the Bible is the only one that gives meaning to life. There are many scriptures that deal with the implications of creation. Does the Bible give us a hint of physical laws? What about our own creativity? Some try to combine Darwinism with Design. Is that possible? Evolution in any form runs counter to the character of the Intelligent Designer, the Word of God and the solid facts of science. We may have a personal relationship with our Creator and Sustainer through Jesus Christ.
Have you ever wondered what the Bible teaches about creation? Here in one source are all the scriptures verses on creation and providential care arranged by topic. God not only made the cosmos, he also holds it together (Col. 1:17). There are dozens of scriptures showing the importance of the Intelligent Designer as Creator and Sustainer. Have you considered the evidence that supports the Bible as a reliable source of truth? The special message from our Creator, from Genesis to Revelation, tells us that we were specially created and not the result of some transformational process starting with a single-celled organism. This innovative work tackles the controversial statement “Intelligent Design is Creationism.” Let’s get back to the Bible by reading the Bible! The reality of Intelligent Design wins the future!
This work is highly literate and makes for a quote-miners delight, but it could have been improved with an index. A topical index of all the scriptures would have been helpful as well.
Be the first on your block to get this creative and vital tome. No Global Flood checks. Not available in all stores. Quantities virtually unlimited.
**NOTE** >> this is a Kindle edition