EVOLUTION AS SUBVERSIVE SCIENCE:
The Divorce Between Theology & Science Has Left us With Subversive Scientism
By R. Mark Musser
As the debate between evolution and intelligent design continues to unfold, there is always the temptation by many on both the left and the right to take the popular well traveled road of suggesting that science and religion must be kept totally separate from each other so that the scientist can verify his theories by fact and experimentation on the one hand, and the theologian can discuss his beliefs as a matter of faith on the other hand. In this way, both science and theology can freely exercise their proper domain in their areas of expertise without competing with each other, or even compromising each other. However, while science and theology can and should be kept distinct from each other, and thus both have the freedom to emphasize what it does best, it is still nonetheless impossible to strictly separate them from each other for the simple reason that science was, and still is, based on a Judeo-Christian theological foundation. Modern science has drunk deep from the wells of a Judeo-Christian worldview, something which surprises, if not shocks most people, precisely because they are completely unaware of science’s strong historic Judeo-Christian foundations. Thus to advocate a total separation between science and theology is actually to undercut science at its roots. It was Darwin’s theory in particular which placed the greatest stress upon the relationship between Christianity and science, and this stress has led us down the subversive path of separating science from theology in a great divorce which has been almost fatal to a Christian Protestant worldview in America, and has also left science often dabbling with scientism rather than true science, as is certainly the case with Darwinian evolution.
The Aftermath of Darwinian Evolution
Today many are now speaking of a post-Christian world, largely because Darwin’s theory of evolution has been so successful in raising all kinds of doubts with regard to the creation story found in Genesis. This has pushed Christianity and the Bible out into a mystical world of pure faith, which increasingly has no bearing on present reality, which in the end, has been and continues to be totally destructive to a Judeo-Christian worldview. Thus to cave into the idea of totally separating science and theology is nothing more than maintaining the status quo of the last 150 years, which will continue to leave Darwin as the king of the mountain, and will continue to drive Christianity out of the public square on an ever increasing scale into a nether world of spiritual mysticism where theologians and scientists cannot communicate with each other, and religious truth will simply become more esoteric, abstract, and doubtful with less and less application in the hearts and minds of everyday people.
The fact of the matter is that in the same way that liberalism has been trying to remove God out of the public society on all levels for the last several decades, and has even re-written the history books with regard to America’s rock solid Protestant foundations, the same can also be said of scientists who have been trying to eradicate God from science as well. It is essentially the exact same process altogether, except that this war has been going on longer, especially since Darwin, and is actually the precursor for the latter. Furthermore, it is no coincidence that classic Protestant values and thinking, which founded this great nation of ours, was later replaced by mystical Pentecostalism once God was kicked out of the science halls by divorcing science from theology. The results of this divorce has been spiritually and scientifically catastrophic in which no one really knows what they believe in anymore, or why, and the only forthcoming answers out there are coming forth from spiritual mystics from both the right and the left, with evolutionists in the background implying to everyone involved that man and nature are nothing more than an accident of blind natural forces over hundreds of millions of years. Worse is that this absurd position, completely contrary not only how people think and live, but also to nature itself, has subversively taken over every scientific biological discussion that is ever taught in any school or university, with no reference to God whatsoever.
Even though God’s existence has been assumed as self evident either theologically, religiously, philosophically, or morally throughout the centuries, biologically speaking, thanks to evolution, He is no longer really necessary. While many Darwinists say they are not against theological, religious, philosophical or moral discussions about God per se, and sometimes even accept God’s existence as a matter of pure faith, they still have stripped God of one of His most important attributes—His creative power—completely oblivious to the profound implications that this indeed has on theology, religion, philosophy, or morality. A God stripped of His creative power is not a God worthy of theological revelation, nor of religious worship, nor of serious philosophical discussion, much less of moral respect. Yet this is precisely the kind of God that Darwinism has left the modern world with. God has become all too easy to ignore in the modern world, thanks largely to the fact that Darwinists preach that God and science are totally disparate categories which cannot commingle with each other.
The Judeo-Christian Foundation for Modern Science
What is increasingly forgotten in all of this is that modern science was built upon a Judeo-Christian theological foundation, with Catholic Scholastic monks leading the way at first, which was later overrun by Lutherans who expanded and strengthened the modern scientific revolution. Both Copernicus and Kepler were Lutherans. Kepler studied to be a Lutheran pastor for three years before he was re-assigned to teach math in Graz, Austria. Da Vinci was also certainly a professing Christian and one of the greatest scientific genius’ of all time. The love for God was clearly the great motivation of Isaac Newton’s scientific work, albeit he may have drifted over into deistic ideas from to time. It must also be remembered that Copernicus, Kepler and Galieo challenged the semi-pantheistic Aristotelian view of the universe, not the biblical one, something which is almost always completely misunderstood and misrepresented with regard to the Copernican revolution. The Catholic scholastics during the middle ages often gave too much deference to Aristotle, which has unfairly given Christianity a bad reputation in the scientific community.
Indeed the famous dictum of modern science, that “knowledge is power,” was coined by the great Christian scientist Francis Bacon. This idea of knowledge as power runs completely counter to the classical Greek conception of knowledge as contemplation, being strongly based upon the Christian ideal where theoretical knowledge must be applied. A theory without action was considered suspect at best, largely because of New Testament teaching, doctrine and practice. The ancient Greeks however, were much more philosophically minded and so had very little interest in developing applied modern science as we see it today. In the Greek world, knowledge was something that you possessed, not something to be applied for the sake of process and power over nature. It just did not occur to them that you must put knowledge into practice, inductively speaking by way of scientific experimentation, in order for knowledge to have any value. Unlike the old Greek model however, modern scientific knowledge is strongly associated with action, process and change, and it took about 1,000 years of Judeo-Christian thinking to root out this Greek pre-occupation of theoria, mysticism, philosophical dreaming, contemplation, and pantheism, in order to finally pave the way for modern science. It was the New Testament, which time and time again stresses the practical import and value of knowledge, which helped form the basis for applied modern science, with Francis Bacon summarizing quite well the whole point of the scientific enterprise, “human knowledge and human power meet in one so that the true and lawful goal of the sciences is to endow human life with new discoveries and powers.” Perhaps more importantly is that Bacon strongly believed that science could be used in a noble way to gain power over nature for the Christian benefit of mankind, most notably to help relieve suffering in the world, very unlike ancient pagan mysticism and philosophy which paid little regard for the harsh realities of life. The ancient pagan mystics and philosophers were spectators in the world who had no interest in changing it for the better. They did not see themselves as scientific actors who had power over nature to help control their circumstances, and thus “save” him from suffering in this life.
More critical than this is that since people believed that God created the universe, this made nature not only tangibly real and rational (unlike in eastern mysticism for example), but also something worthy of serious investigation. In other words, the scientist expected to learn from nature precisely because they assumed that God intelligently designed it. On top of this is that since the Judeo-Christian God was also separated from nature, i.e., transcendent above it, to study nature and tinker with it would not be considered an irreligious or irreverent act. In other words, Plato and Aristotle would consider modern science to be a sacrilege against the pantheistic powers of nature. Looking into the secrets of nature was considered to be beyond the powers of man, an act of impiety. Along these lines, Plato even criticized the whole idea of verification by experimentation. As such, without the strong Judeo-Christian theological foundation, modern science could not have born. It was the Christian worldview which removed the pagan pantheistic view of the universe that gave the scientist his freedom to study nature with very few hindrances. As such, the early monks simply did not view science as authoritative over the Bible as we do today, but yet within the context of the Scriptures, science was free. The early scientists thus shared the Judeo-Christian outlook in believing that there is a reasonable God who had created a reasonable universe, and as such, by the use of his reason, especially inductive reason, man could study the created universe to his heart’s content. Once this foundational block is removed or doubted, the results will not be a progressive evolutionary one as so many have popularly portrayed in academic circles, but will be a reversal of fortune precisely because the basis for scientific knowledge is now gone.
Francis Bacon was very representative of many other early Christian scientists when he said, “man, by the Fall, fell at the same time from both his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses however can even in this life be in some part repaired – the former by religion and faith and the latter by the arts and sciences.” Bacon thus understood science to be a religious activity within the context of fallen man who lost his original dominion over nature, and this original dominion over nature is essential and basic to the whole scientific enterprise. In other words, Bacon and many others like him, thought that man’s loss of dominion over nature could be partially recovered by the proper use of faith and science. God’s transcendence over nature, coupled with man being created in God’s image, which originally included his dominion over nature as described in Genesis 1, are the two most important foundation blocks upon which the scientific revolution was built. God’s transcendence over the universe, and man’s original dominion over nature, is what gave the early scientist the justification for the idea that “knowledge is power.” In addition to this, knowledge was not naked power, but power to be used in relationship to the glory of God. Now today, with more biting irony than can be listened to, it is strongly being implied that Christians are unscientific morons, and that they should not bring in their theological views to weigh in on scientific ideas so as not to pollute the purity of science. That there is something certainly wrong with this picture goes without saying.
The Darwinian Subversion of Science
Today, since God has been removed from the science halls, modern evolutionary environmentalism has virtually seized the scientific community, and this is a movement which bristles at the idea of man being dominant over nature. How is it possible that science has been largely overrun by evolutionary environmentalists who deny the whole concept of knowledge as power and do everything they can to stop this process? This is indeed something very strange, akin to the biggest Trojan Horse operation ever seen in the history of the west, and evolution is at the center of this contradictory and self-defeating dynamic. Science today thinks that it has been freed from constraints of the Bible, but it has now been hijacked by other social political concerns which emphasize anything but liberty as the Protestants originally understood it, and making man out to be nothing more than one more animal among many in the whole evolutionary grand scheme of things will in the end circumvent the whole scientific enterprise at its roots, and make people a virtual slave to mother nature. Other animal species are not scientists, and real scientists are not slaves to mother nature. Real scientists exercise their power over nature, without which science cannot possibly exist.
Thus contrary to popular academic thinking, in the final analysis, Darwinism is subversive to science. It is in fact an anti-science, perhaps one of the first anti heroes of the modern western world. Science and dominion over nature go hand in hand, and if this dominance is questioned or removed, science is no longer science, and will increasingly fall sway under the subversive pressures of scientism. In short, scientists have been demoted under Darwin’s system, perfectly illustrated by Darwin’s other book called the Descent of Man. This fateful Darwinian conclusion, i.e., that man strictly belongs to the animal family, and is just an evolutionary by-product of blind natural processes, leaves science without a secure and solid foundation. Moreover, this subversion of science can also be traced to Darwin’s views on holism where his organic tree model illustrating the interconnectedness of the origin of the species is largely borrowed from ecological romanticism, which is far more a philosophy of nature than true science.
Perhaps just as important as all this is that it must be kept in mind that when Darwin postulated his theory or evolution, this was long before the great scientific advancements of the 20th century were discovered which greatly enhanced modern man’s understanding of biological systems and species. Now, especially with the great strides which have been made at the microbiological level, the face of Darwinian scientism is becoming ever more apparent. Worse is that the true nature of Darwinism’s anti-science stance is being exposed by a growing body of scientists who are now seeing the glaring inconsistency between biological evidence and evolution, but unfortunately they are being gagged, isolated and shunned as being unscientific, and sometimes even fired for their views. In fact, the microbiological evidence for a Creator or Designer has become so overwhelming that some scientists have brought back to life the teleological argument for God’s existence, this time not using abstractions from old philosophy books, but using the mind boggling complexity of microscopic cells at a molecular level as evidence for an ultimate Designer. Stephen Meyer’s The Signature of Cell: DNA and the Evidence For Intelligent Design strongly points out the microbiology has entered the information age at the molecular level, which certainly cries out for an Intellingent Designer.
The Great Difficulties with Modern Evolutionary Theory
Thus, contrary to popular opinion, evolution is increasingly having a harder time, not because of naive theological zealots and redneck Americans who live in Kansas, but because the evidence against it is growing with new scientific advancements. In converse, the evidence for evolution is virtually non-existent. While microevolution within a species is a fact of nature which no one denies and can be scientifically observed and verified (which also says and implies very little), macroevolution, i.e., the idea that in the struggle for survival old species advance to become new species through a process of natural selection, is actually running out of steam with an ever increasing paucity of evidence to substantiate it. One cannot assume, as is often the case among many evolutionary scientists, that microevolution equals macroevolution. While there may be plenty of evidence for microevolution, there is virtually none for macroevolution.
The late evolutionist Stephen Gould even had to write a critical book on this subject called Punctuated Equilibrium, which essentially is an admission that no fossils or bones have ever been found to substantiate evolution, and why this lack of hard evidence does not harm the theory. Evolution demands that most of the bones we find should be transitional bones, but alas, no real uncontested transitional bones have ever been found, and a lot of bones have been discovered since Darwin, upward to the tune of one million or so, and so the fossil evidence is getting thinner all the time. Keep in mind that it was the paleontologists, not pastors, who originally criticized Darwin saying “show us the bones.” But after 150 years or so of digging up fossils, the bone collection is just as disappointing as it was when all the paleontologists first questioned Darwin. What really happened, strangely enough, is that too many theologians were all to ready to compromise with the Hegelian-Darwinian academic juggernaut of the day, and so gradually paleontology followed suit.
However, paleontology’s original skepticism toward Darwin’s theory has been confirmed. Transitional bones have been awfully hard to come by, and what literal handful of bones have been touted as transitionals are highly doubtful. In fact, with regard to all those fossils and bones, the evidence is so bad that Gould had to write a book on the subject explaining why it is okay that no clear transitional bones have been found called Punctuated Equilibrium. The very speculative theory here is that only a fringe of certain species on the outside edge evolved into other species, and that this evolution was much more drastic than originally thought, and further, that these new species stubbornly stay the same longer than previously understood. Hence, the name of the theory: punctuated equilibrium, and it was precisely the lack of fossil evidence that forced Gould down a path that looks less and less like classic Darwinism. In essence, Gould was forced to convert the grand evolutionary scheme that has been taught as dogmas in school textbooks for decades now into a fringe operation that drastically punctuates from time to time, separated by great eras of steady equilibrium, all of which stands in marked contrast to the idea of gradual evolutionary change. Here, Gould almost comes full circle back to pre-Darwinian views, yet still maintains the evolutionary doctrine, even though it has been severely gutted.
Thus at this juncture, the whole idea of the “missing link” should thus be communicating to everyone involved that the hard evidence is in fact still missing! Closely related to all of this, including Gould’s modified version of Darwinism, is that the Cambrian explosion itself is virtually a fatal blow to the whole evolutionary theory because it clearly shows, even geologically speaking, that most of the species that have been on this planet, extinct or non-extinct, showed up rather suddenly and fully formed. The fact that they call this an “explosion” should be a “heads up” as to how weak macroevolutionary theory is since it demands a gradual process over hundreds of millions of years. Add on top of this the recent findings of microbiology and biochemistry where scientists have discovered the incredible complexity of microscopic cells, which are essentially living machines chock full of intelligent information directly comparable to language that make modern computers look out of date and obsolete. Michael Behe has also called these microscopic cells irreducibly complex, which is a sharp dagger pointing at the throat of the whole macroevolutionary theory. Darwin’s original evolutionary assumption was that cells were simple. This assumption was dead wrong. As such, in light of these tremendous scientific advancements with regard to understanding cell structures, the evolutionist must now be able to show how this intelligent information changes so as to support their evolutionary theory. Meaning that if species change into new species, there must be a massive intelligent information change within the microscopic cell structures to produce such changes. This kind of process of course has never been observed by evolutionists in any of their experiments (and never will be). In order to really prove evolution, one must account in one way or another, for the information change that is required for one species to develop into another species.
While many may consider the creation story of Genesis a myth, no one even considers what a blind faith evolution is as well, i.e., that pure materialism without any mind or design behind it can create the beautiful complex world we live in all by a combination of chance, lots of time, and natural laws. The odds of this taking place all by itself, under its own power and hence by its own limitations, no matter how many million years are discussed, are actually astronomical beyond possibility, and one would be far better off betting on the lottery than believing in evolution. At least the so-called creation myth of Genesis has a cogent reason for the fact of the universe’s existence, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In the evolution story we have something rather different, if not blatantly absurd, ” in the beginning nothing (the Big Bang is a scientific fact which strongly implies, if not even necessitates, the existence of God) somehow came up with something that somehow mixed with some primitive gases, water and rock, producing sparks of electricity that helped form primitive microscopic life forms through the bringing together of certain amino acids starting with dead materials but advancing to life forming processes that slowly created life as we know it by a hidden natural law called natural selection through billions and millions of years of evolutionary mutations.”
This leads directly into perhaps the most serious problem concerning evolutionary theory. In order for one to accept the doctrine of evolution, i.e., that there is no intelligent designer who intervenes in natural history to create, confer and propagate life, one must also accept odd and strange philosophical absurdities, summarized very well by Lee Strobel in his new book “The Case for a Creator,” which demands that nothing produces everything, that non-life produces life, that randomness produces fine-tuning, that chaos produces information, that unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason, none of which has been observed in any test tube. Here the evolutionists swallow the proverbial camel while straining out gnats and mosquitoes. A scientific theory plump full of philosophical absurdities is not much good, no matter how “natural” or “materialistic” the explanation may be.
Evolution also runs completely contrary to both the first and second law of thermodynamics, i.e, the law of conservation and the law of increasing disorganization, both of which are about as close to absolute universal scientific laws that any scientist will ever espouse. In other words, in layman’s terms, Murphy’s Law overrules the possibility of evolution from the get go. Mass extinction, destruction and death is a far better explanation of natural history than evolution is, and is far more akin to the Biblical record as well where much stress is placed on the fall of man and nature, not to mention the Noahic catastrophe.
Along these fallen, catastrophic lines, it must also be kept in mind that when Darwin arrived on the scene a century and a half ago, biology at the time had little appreciation for a fallen natural world. In their liberal deism where they purposefully ignored sin and the fall, too much stress was placed upon the orderliness and perfection of the nature founded upon widespread European pastoral experiences on the farm where many natural negatives were controlled. Since members of Darwin’s family already believed in evolution, it is very likely that Darwin did too before he ever set sail on the Beagle, and it was his experiences and observations of an obviously violent and fallen world on the Galagapos Islands that helped him “substantiate” his evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest. It was the odd and cruel realities of the Galagapos Islands in particular that were used to debunk biological perfection and orderliness as presumed everywhere on the European continent. Thus, ironically enough, Darwin returned to a more biblical position on nature by giving credence to its obvious fallen shortcomings, but then however took a long detour with regard to his doctrine of the origin of the species. Rather than accept the idea that nature was mutated by the judgment of God against man’s sin, natural selection was foisted upon the natural world to explain why nature is so often truncated, crooked and imperfect. After all, how could a perfect all-powerful Being intelligently design flawed natural ecosystems and species? It was at this critical juncture that Darwin’s theory made more sense than the previous view of nature being perfectly ordered by an intelligent designer. Even today, this argument is still used to discredit intelligent design, but anyone can easily pick up a Bible and read Job 39:13-18 to show why this argument does not hold any water.
As such, strangely enough, both Darwin and the Bible agree that nature is fallen. The difference is that the Bible says that God judged nature to corral man’s sinfulness, whereas Darwin says that nature evolved into a fallen condition through the (virtually all powerful) mutation/natural selection process over hundreds of millions of years. That there is something wrong with the latter explanation goes without saying. The first, in spite of its supernatural character, actually makes far more sense than the latter, and easily explains the first and second law of thermodynamics as well. In other words, after creating a perfect world, which naturally leads to the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation, the God of the Bible mutated nature on purpose to discipline the sin of man, which explains the second law of thermodynamics, i.e, the law of increasing disorganization and degeneration. Hence, Darwin’s emphasis upon mutation is not at all inconsistent with what the Bible teaches about nature. The problem is that Darwin is looking at this all backwards, a lot like developing a print from a negative that has been turned inside out, which in Darwin’s case would be a very easy mistake to do, since he was not there “in the beginning” when “God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1).”
More to the point is that the whole Galagapos Islands “scientific” experience is that a very unusual island with unusual experiences in a fallen world somehow becomes normative to explain how all species arise throughout geologic history. In other words, just as bad cases make bad laws, so do odd and unusual experiences make odd and unusual scientific theories. Too often people remember unusual events, treat them normative, and then their whole life becomes based on abnormal experiences and memories, forgetting what is normal, and Darwin’s theory on evolution is a classic example of this whole process. When people become preoccupied with odd experiences without keeping them in proper context that they are indeed odd, they lose sight of that which is normal and obvious, and thus lose their bearings, and become subject to peculiar doctrines, theories and practices which lead them down the garden path of an all-encompassing strangeness which distorts their understanding of the world.
Even more damaging is that the very fact that so much weight is placed on mutation ever shows just how weak evolutionary theory really is. Mutation, which almost always leads to chaos, disorganization, destruction and death, is presented as an incredible evolutionary life giver, so powerful that God Himself is no longer even necessary. This is an absurd position of weakness to argue from, and automatically places the second law of thermodynamics and the first law of thermodynamics into a collision course. That mutation/natural selection occurs at a microevolutionary level actually reinforces the second law of thermodynamics, but it is an incredible leap of faith to say this same process leads to the macroevolution of brand new species, which has yet to be even observed scientifically in any way.
How one can actually believe this without blushing, regardless of his scientific degrees, has to be one of the greatest mysteries of the 20th century, and echoes from Paul’s letter to the Romans become deafening at this point, “professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four footed animals and crawling creatures (Rom 1:22-23).” This verse, while describing the idolatrous pagan worldview, is also prophetic concerning modern evolution. Evolution is an idolatrous doctrine precisely because it ascribes to corruptible nature itself, i.e., mutation for example (which evolutionists even flaunt against creationists), life giving powers and properties, a silly doctrine which amazingly enough, academic types are strongly attracted to. Paganism, which is blatantly anti-scientific, has been reincarnated and brought back to us in the form of the doctrine of evolution, hiding in the shadows of a purely materialistic or naturalistic philosophy which has subversively weaved its way into modern science. The very fact that ecological evolutionists have a full court press placed upon the science department to bring us all back to a holistic and sacred view of the natural world proves its pagan origins. In a peculiar way, we have essentially returned to the time when religious Aristotelian pantheists of the middle ages were prosecuting great scientists like Galileo and company, coupled with all of their scientific advancements which they represented.
Evolution, i.e., macroevolution, is the biggest snowjob of the 20th century. It is starting to lose momentum because of its own dead weight. It is facing a credibility crisis because of its lack of explanatory power, not because Pat Robertson is against it. On the other hand, the case for intelligent design is far more cogent and stronger than many may think. It easily leaves Darwin in the dust because it has far greater explanatory power since it has to assume so little, and is also the most obvious and simple answer (everyone acknowledges that all species has the appearance of design). As such, it easily survives the great scientific principle of Ockham’s razor which rightly emphasizes that a theory which has to assume too much and explain too much will quickly cave in under the pressure of its own weight. In science, one is suppose to choose the theory which can explain the most amount of facts with the fewest amount of problems, and whether that theory is considered “natural” or “supernatural” is beside the point. You always go with the theory which has the most explanatory power, and intelligent design does a far better job explaining the world we live in than evolution does.
While one should always be very suspicious of religionists who are usually not experts in biology, the shoe also fits the other foot. One should also be very skeptical of scientists who take on great topics like the origin of life, which invariably enters into the realm of philosophy and religion. The origin of life has not and never will be observed by strict scientific observation and experimentation, and thus philosophy and religion will enter into the equation no matter how one cuts the deck. While religionists and pastors may certainly be in over their heads when it comes to biological expertise, the scientist also gets in way over his head when he tries to make blanket statements about the origin of life. He invariably falls into the pitfalls of scientism, and pays mere lip service to the proper limitations of scientific knowledge. Science by definition always involves reduction as a principle, since it is a knowledge based on process, action and change via verification though experimentation. While what it says may be true, it is not the whole story, being limited by it own methodology. When one looks at a beautiful cloud floating in the sky, you simply cannot reduce it to collection of water molecules suspended in the atmosphere. While it is that, it is certainly more than that. More to the point, if science reduces a beautiful cloud that we see in the sky today, what about something as grand as the origin of life which supposedly took place billions of years ago with evolutionary name tags slapped all over it, especially if this theory subverts the entire relationship to man and nature in the first place? Divorce rarely has positive results and living with the consequences are often more painful than the divorce itself, especially when the ex-spouse has become blatantly subversive.
LIST OF PRIMARY SOURCES
Behe, Michael. Darwin’s Black Box.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of the Species.
Gould, Stephen. Punctuated Equilibrium.
Gruner, Rolf. Knowledge and Power: On the Character of Modern Science.
Johnson, Philip. The Wedge of Truth.
Meyer, Stephen. The Signature of the Cell.
Morris, Henry. The Biblical Basis for Modern Science.
Morris, Henry. The Long War Against God.
Muncaster, Ralph. Dismantling Evolution.
Schmidt, Alvin. Under the Influence.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator.
The Old New Testaments.
Worster, Donald. Nature’s Economy.
Copyright 2009 R. Mark Musser
Permission is herewith given to copy and distribute by electronic or physical means as long as it is not sold – the copyright notice is included and credits are given to the author.