Evolution is an ideaology which can only be accepted by people who have a personal predispostion or need to believe in a creatorless, designerless world. It is only after someone has accepted this belief as being true that he can then pick, choose, and distort which scientific facts he looks at in an attempt to support his erroneous view of the world. While the opposing view, creation, is made out by some evolutionists to be the concoction of unscientific, close-minded and superstitious people, it is the opposite which is more true.

Assumes: science must presuppose atheism. Science is able to observe and explain all that is relevant in our universe. (see other paper) These are two show that science rests on statements of faith, not scientific fact.

My faith in God does not demand that I close my eyes to observable nature or to scientific analysis of it - rather I welcome it, since I see in it only further evidence of a great designer, and through its study do I come to a greater understanding of it. My faith in God does not demand that I pretend to know everything - I am not threatened to find out some new fact of nature which would somehow shatter my false world of belief in a benevolent creator. No - the truth is its own defense, and God is obviously over all and Creator of all or he isn't God. There is therefore, nothing in Creation which does not bear witness to this, as scientific observation does indeed bear out.

The fact of natures great design and precise order is obvious and cannot be denied to those who have done even limited inquiry, yet this fact seems to elude evolutionists who cling religiously to their creatorless world even as they discover the complexity of its order, design, and functionality - this observaton in itself would make one who is open-mindedly interested in discovering truth, to logically conclude that there is, indeed a grand designer of some sort - the deduction is natural, that a complex design must have come from a complex designer, rather that just "make itself happen" somehow by chance.(again, presumes the role of science as examining nature and explaning it assuming atheism) Yet the great scientific minds reject this most obvious conclusion and instead cling rigidly to thier dogma of evolution - concocting greater explanations to support, not what scientific observation would lead them to conclude, but their own preconception of a creatorless world. Thus their analysis is driven and limited by dogma, and is not a search for objective scientic truth as it purports. The evolution theory begins and ends in the personal beliefs of its proponents, beliefs which are certainly not founded on anything which could be termed "scientific", in that science is supported by observable nature, but beliefs in the absolute rights of man as the supreme center of the universe, and belief that an all-powerful all-knowing creator who is the creator of all and to whom all things, including man, are obliged is merely a myth invented by people who are out of touch with the world around them.

I have said that the very observation of natures grand design would lead a truly un-dogmattically motivated individual to the conclusion that there must be a logical creator, an orderer of all that is in order, a great mind who is higher than all and ultimately in control of all, and that those who truly are proponents of evolution are not open-minded seekers of truth as they purport - they are the idealouges in search of any evidence in the natural world which would support their view of a creatorless world - a view which they have taken on, not through a reasoned decision based on evidence, but because it fits conveniently with thier lifestyle and view of the human race as master of its own destiny, obliged to follow no divine will.

I will now give three points which demonstrate that evolution is not supported by natural ovservation.

While evolution claims to be based on scientific observable fact, it in fact, flies in the face of the most fundamental laws readily observable in the natural world. 1) Evolution presumes that matter is transformed from one level of complexity to greater level of complexity - in other words, instead of natural decay, natural composition occurs. But this is obviously not the order we observe in nature, rather it is the opposite which is true, and always has been. Any natural life form left on its own will eventually die and rot down to its basest elements - it doesn't somehow reform itself into a higher order of being. This is true for very natural life form on earth - plant, animal, and human. 2) As I said above, evolution asserts that living things evolve from one level of complexity to another. if this were so, then clearly there would be in our world today, numerous examples of this going on, there would be so-called intermediate forms of plants and animals as they are continuously progressing from one level to another. We should for instance, be able to find a creature, or evidence of a creature somewhere between the ape and the man - "the missing link," or between a fish and a land mammal, or an ameba and a clump of seaweed. But this is not the case. Despite the misinformation of some evolution zealots, there is no evidence, living or in fossils, of intermediate forms. What is seen instead is evidence that each classification of living things has remained in its form since its creation. If one dug up a human skeleton from thousands of years ago, the bones would still be that of a man - not of a man-ape, not of a "cro-magnun" man, etc. - all these terms and ideas were created by evolutionist zealots to explain their theory - but they have no founding basis in fact. There has never been any discovery of human skeletal bones which support the idea that man developed from a crawling animal-like being into a two-legged man who eventually developed the capacity to reason. Nor is there evidence of intermediate forms in any class of plant or animal. 3) Since most evolutionists hold to a creatorless universe, matter must have the ability to generate itself out of nothing. This theory presumes that something can generate itself from nothing. Matter can somehow spontaneously just pop into existence with no outside intervention (God). If this can happen, evolutionists describe a world strangely different than the one we are living in now, one which denies the most fundamental scientific laws readily seen through the ages.

This last presuposition (as do the others) takes a great leap in imagination - requires an act of faith greater than a faith in a creative God, since the acceptance of the supposition of spontaneously created matter is in no way compatable with the observable laws of nature which we now see. We don't walk down the street and suddenly see a rock appear on the sidewalk in front of us. But this is the natural order which evolution, to be believed, must accept...saying that over billions of years these processes evolved - but, aside from the fact just shown that matter in our world does not increase in complexity when left on its own, but rather decays - the mathematical probablities are so preposterously large - that this chemical happens to mix with this one in exactly the right quantitiy and in the right environment, etc. that its absurd to even think that evolution is considered a viable theory among people who are supposed to be objective truth-seekers.

And what force or impetus acted upon these chemicals, etc. to cause them to mix and reform themselves?

But this they must believe since they somehow believe that science must examine the universe from an atheistic perspective. Because it cannot quantify God or the unknown, it simply treats it as not existing. ... So why should we listen to them if they claim to be scientific when they clearly are not scientific? The rules of scientific observation demand that one looks at the evidence and then come to a conclusion based on that evidence, and to disregard theories which do not hold up to the facts of scientific observation. But that is not what evolution does. It begins with the presupposition of a creatorless universe - and then attempts to explain this presupposition through making up its own laws contrary to the laws which are presently observed, picking and choosing which evidence it admits for observation. Rather than discard the theory for lack of evidence, its proponents have clung to it in blind defiance of contrary evidence. Is this scientific or is this blind ideology?

I have stated many times above that evolutionists have a predisposition to believe in a creatorless world. Why is this? I believe it is because a world without a Creator means a world without ultimate truth, without ultimate standards of right and wrong, and without obligation to live by these standards or to be answerable for life actions to anyone but oneself. Is evolution necessarily atheistic? While some may say that they believe in some cosmic force, in reality, their theories deny that the Creator is at all actively involved in the affairs of earth, again keeping themselves unaccountable. Evolution, then is a necessary foundation for atheism, and atheism is necessary to justify the acceptance of the idea that there is no objective truth - in other words, whatever each person says is truth, is truth. That this idea has become so entrenched in this current generation is not hard to see - everywhere is seen the exaltation of human choice, the celebration of man as supreme, the advocacy of relativistic morality - which means there is no such thing as true morality. And evolution is one of the primary planks of this new belief system (though it is not really new at all - just new to our country and society within the last 30-40 years).