Evolution - more of a religion than a science.

There is an enormous amount of material by Christian educators, scientist, engineers, mathematicians, historians, philosophers, etc. exposing the fallacies of evolution; I have a few links at the bottom of this section. For each individual person there is much more to gain or loose than scientific or religious truth. An individual’s soul is in the balance and their eternal destiny is in question. Don’t let a belief in evolution block you from believing God’s truth.

Evolution is more of a religion than a science because its claims are unverifiable. Just a few of the problems are problems with the mechanism of mutation and natural selection, problems with finding transitional fossils between major groups when they should be numerous, problems with the molecular evidence for common descent, and severe problems with any scenario for the origin of life. Evolutionists have tried cleverly to insulate themselves from criticism by defining science in purely naturalistic terms; their philosophy is the materialistic or naturalistic worldview. What we need to know is evolution is as un-observable as creation. As an explanation for how complex organisms came into existence in the first place, Darwinism is pure philosophy. Despite the claims of atheistic scientists that evolution is secular, it is loaded with religious and philosophical implications. Most definitions of evolution emphasize its lack of purpose or goal. If evolution does not have a purpose in contrast to Christianity which does have a purpose; then evolution is the philosophic opposite of Christianity; evolution must then be religious itself.
http://www.probe.org/docs/philjohn.html

It is not reasonable or believable science to consider evolution’s claim of how life originated; imagine a biological system that is sufficiently complex to process energy, store information, and replicate, and yet at the same time is sufficiently simple to have just "happened" in a warm pond, as Darwin suggested, or elsewhere. For the more technical minded consider the following; if you are interested use the link, it is good.

Go to Origins for the full article.
By Walter L. Bradley, PhD
Complex molecules, such as proteins, RNA, and DNA, provide for essential biological functions. These biopolymers are actually long chains of simpler molecular building blocks such as amino acids sugars and bases. Their biological function is intimately connected to their precise chemical structure. How, then, were they assembled with such perfect functionality before the origin of life itself? If I stand across the street and throw paint at my curb, I am not very likely to paint "204," which is my house number. On the other hand, if I first place a template with the numbers "204" on my curb and then sling paint, I can easily paint "204" on my curb. Living systems contain their own templates. However, such templates did not guide the process before life began (i.e., under prebiotic conditions). How, then, did the templates and other molecular machinery originate?

To illustrate the staggering degree of complexity involved here, let us consider a typical protein that is composed of 100 amino acids. Amino acids are molecules that can have two mirror image structures, usually referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" variants. A functional protein requires the amino acids from which it is built to be (1) all left-handed; (2) all linked together with peptide bonds and (3) all in just the right sequence to fold up into the three-dimensional structure needed for biological function. The probability of correctly assembling a functional protein in one try in a prebiotic pond is 1/10190. If we took all of the carbon in the universe, converted it into amino acids, and allowed it to chemically react at the maximum permissible rate of 1013 interactions per second for five billion years, the probability of making a single functioning protein increases to only 1/1060. For this reason, chance explanations for the origin of life have been rejected. Some non-random process or intelligent designer must be responsible. However, there are no apparent nonrandom processes (such as natural selection is claimed to be in evolution) that would seem to be capable of generating the required complexity and information for the first living system.
http://www.origins.org/articles/bradley_existenceofgod.html

There are atheistic scientists who believe in evolution and there are theistic scientists who believe God created everything, the universe and all life. Theistic scientists have a fairly unified view concerning the fallacies of evolution; they believe God is the creator/designer; however, there are two different views on the six days of creation. Some theistic scientists hold a young earth view and others hold an old earth view; I have my own view which doesn't entirely fall into either camp, I will describe it on this website as time permits. When considering evolution I will reference theistic scientists on either side of the young versus old earth issue; websites tend to fall into these two categories also, I will list some of each.

I want you to consider one theistic scientist who has earned respect from the entire scientific community, Wernher Von Braun, the father of the U.S. space program who openly declared his belief in God.

WERNHER VON BRAUN (1912-1977)

One of the world’s top space scientists was a man by the name of Wernher von Braun. He attended the University of Berlin, and after his graduation began developing rockets for his native country of Germany. However, in 1945 he came to the United States, and ten years later in 1955, he became a U.S. citizen.

Dr. von Braun was the leading force behind America’s own space program. He and his team helped invent and produce the four-stage Jupiter rocket that launched Explorer I, the first United States satellite. In another of his projects, the Saturn V rocket was constructed, eventually putting the first astronauts on the Moon. He directed America’s program of missile development for many years, and eventually became the Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). His office was in Huntsville, Alabama.

During his lifetime, Dr. von Braun received many important honors and awards. But he always gave God credit for his achievements. He believed that the evidence for God’s existence could be found all around us in nature. He also believed in the concept of creation as taught in Genesis 1; he did not believe in evolution. He once said that science and religion work so well together that they should be considered as "sisters." The more he studied the heavens, the more evidence he saw of the Creator.

Dr. von Braun was never ashamed of his faith in God. When he died in 1977, co-workers found in his files many letters he had written to other scientists (like the famous medical doctor, Albert Schweitzer), in which he tried to show them why they, too, should believe in God. He tried to share his faith in God with everyone around him. Today he is remembered as a "giant" in the scientific community, but he also is remembered as a "giant" for his belief in God. We should want to imitate him in this way.

Creation Websites

Jesus Christ and his gospel can be very offensive to the non-Christian; the Bible tells us Christ will be a stumbling stone and a rock of offence. To an atheist, preaching of Christ's cross seems to be foolishness. The battle between theism and atheism rages in religious, scientific, an ideological warfare that at times has even resulted in bloodshed. The solution to man's dilemma is so simple, but for the natural man so difficult and offensive. The cherished intelligence of an atheist is used as his basis, justification, and even weapon of battle. The atheist, from his natural tendencies, is easily and willingly offended and therefore stumbles.

Unfortunately there are difficulties and disagreements within the Christian community concerning various theological issues; there are disagreements about things like the six days of creation. Obviously with God all truths totally harmonize. Surely we don't think God is surprised at our disagreements and opposing views; was He unaware of the stumbling we Christians would do as a result of the revelation He left us? Do we not realize that what is impossible with man is possible with God? If there was a scientific explanation that resolves this six day conflict in a way that might surprise both sides, and I think there might be, would we then be in better standing with God? Or would we be better not needing this scientific crutch which would reduce the amount of faith needed and instead say, Lord I believe help my unbelief. As I eventually go into these areas of disagreement I pray that God will be my guide.